2012 (11) TMI 153 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal Held that - No explanation has been given for this delay. In fact the delay of 147 days has been explained in one sentence that the delay has been occurred due to unavoidable co-ordination gaps between different Sections or units of the Department - delay has not been properly explained - application for condonation of delay rejected

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, lack of proper explanation for delay, failure to follow Tribunal's directions, lack of authorization for filing applications, casual approach towards legal provisions on condonation of delay.

Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal was proposed 147 days after the order in appeal was issued, exceeding the three-month limit as per Section 129A(3). The explanation provided for the delay was vague, citing "unavoidable co-ordination gaps." The Tribunal noted that the delay in considering the appeal proposal and forwarding relevant documents was not adequately explained. The lack of coordination was deemed unsustainable, as it took an additional four months to forward the necessary papers after the appeal decision was made.

2. Failure to Follow Tribunal's Directions:
The Tribunal observed multiple instances where the Revenue failed to comply with directions. Despite being asked to file an affidavit to explain the delay, the Revenue submitted another application for condonation of delay. This failure to follow specific instructions indicated a lack of seriousness in adhering to legal procedures and Tribunal directives.

3. Lack of Authorization for Filing Applications:
The revised application for condonation of delay was signed by a Deputy Commissioner without proper authorization. This departure from the standard procedure, where a specific individual was authorized for such filings, raised questions about the procedural lapses within the department.

4. Casual Approach Towards Legal Provisions:
The Tribunal criticized the casual approach of the officers involved towards the legal provisions related to condonation of delay. It was noted that there was a presumption that delay condonation would be granted as a matter of right without providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. This lackadaisical attitude towards legal timelines and procedures was deemed unacceptable.

5. Decision on Condonation of Delay:
Despite submissions from the Respondent's representative citing previous decisions and arguments against condonation of delay, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that the delay had not been adequately explained, leading to the rejection of both the condonation application and the appeal itself.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal timelines, providing detailed explanations for delays, and following Tribunal directives with due diligence. The failure to meet these standards resulted in the rejection of the condonation application and the appeal.