2012 (6) TMI 416 - AT - Customs

Application to condone the delay of 985 days in filing appeal - Joint appeal - Held that - As the main appeal was filed well within the limitation period of 3 months, the present two appeals filed by the partners are required to be treated as supplementary appeals and the delay in filing the same is required to be condoned - as the earlier appeal has been allowed on merits the present appeal being impugned in the main appeal stand set aside allow their appeals - stay petition also gets disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, Joint appeal filed by partnership firm, Separate appeals by partners, Condonation of delay, Imposition of penalties on partners

Analysis:
The main issue in this case was the delay of 985 days in filing the present appeals. The Advocate for the appellants argued that the impugned order was passed against the partnership firm and the partners, imposing penalties on all of them. The Joint appeal was initially filed by the partnership firm within the limitation period of 3 months. However, due to procedural advice, the partners later filed separate appeals. The Tribunal noted that the main appeal by the partnership firm was timely and included penalties imposed on all three applicants. Therefore, the separate appeals by the partners were treated as supplementary appeals, and the delay was condoned.

Regarding the imposition of penalties on the partners, the Advocate highlighted that the earlier appeal filed by the partnership firm had already been decided in their favor. As the impugned order had been set aside in the main appeal, the Advocate argued that the separate appeals challenging the penalties on the partners should also be allowed. The Revenue representative left the decision to the Bench, and following the earlier order, the impugned order in respect of the partners was set aside, and their appeals were allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the delay in filing the separate appeals by the partners was justified as the main appeal by the partnership firm had already been successful. Therefore, the impugned order imposing penalties on the partners was set aside, and their appeals were allowed. The COD application, stay applications, and appeals were disposed of accordingly.