9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal. Analysis: The case involved an application for condonation of delay of 1 year 5 months and 5 days in filing an appeal by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the discovery of misrepresentation of facts by the respondents, leading to the need for further investigations. The appellant contended that the delay should be condoned in the larger public interest due to substantial revenue implications. The Supreme Court decisions in the cases of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra were cited to support the argument for condonation of delay based on public interest. The appellant urged that the delay was not due to negligence, and evidence had been obtained to show misuse of duty-free import facility by the respondents. The appellant requested the matter to be remanded for fresh consideration based on the new evidence. The respondents, represented by senior counsel, argued against the condonation of delay, stating that the grounds for condonation and the merits of the appeal were the same. They emphasized that fraud needed to be proven with evidence and could not be based on a prima facie view by the Tribunal. The respondents highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had also relied on an order in a related case involving the same chief chemist's opinion, indicating consistency in decisions. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides and referred to the Supreme Court decision in Ajit Singh v. State of Gujarat. The Tribunal noted that the event triggering the appeal, i.e., the discovery of misrepresentation, occurred after the expiration of the appeal filing deadline. Citing the Supreme Court's stance that events occurring after the limitation period cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the Tribunal concluded that the delay could not be justified. The Tribunal emphasized that a litigant should not easily be allowed to deprive the opposing party of accrued rights due to the passage of time. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
|
