9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 509 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay - The deponent states due to medical conditions the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period of limitation Held that - No satisfactory explanation of the heavy delay involved in the filing of the appeal. No medical certificate on record to show any such illness of the father for the said period. The available records are a miscellany which has not been interpreted or explained to us. The COD application is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay
Analysis: 1. Delay in filing appeal: The appellant sought condonation of a delay of 6 years and 278 days in filing the appeal. The appellant attributed the delay to the severe health problems faced by the father, who was the Managing Director of the company. The son of the deceased Managing Director, who was a Director of the company, filed the appeal belatedly. The medical records submitted with the condonation of delay application did not provide evidence of the father's illness during the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal noted that the son could have filed the appeal without delay, as he was involved in the case proceedings and correspondence with the department. 2. Condonation of delay: The learned Superintendent (AR) argued that the son, who was prosecuting the case before the department, had responded to letters issued by the department after the impugned order. The Superintendent pointed out that the son had the opportunity to file the appeal within the statutory period, as nothing hindered him from doing so. The Tribunal found no satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the condonation of delay application as lacking merit. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed along with the stay application. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay application and consequently dismissed the appeal due to the significant delay in filing, despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting the reasons for the delay provided by the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely compliance with statutory limitations in legal proceedings.
|
