2014 (2) TMI 728 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - application for condonation of delay was without mentioning number of days of delay and that remained blank - That was notarized leaving the age of the deponent also blank. When such defect was pointed out, the appellant came up filing an application on 01/10/2012 stating that inadvertently the number of days of delay not mentioned in Para 3 of the application was 3 days and age of the appellant inadvertently skipped was 52 years. The application so filed was not verified by an affidavit for which again on 11.07.2013, the appellant filed an affidavit without explaining the number of days of delay - Held that - Prima facie, it appears that arrest of the appellant along with the abettor Moolchand Sharma does not show that the appellant was an innocent and unaware of the status of adjudication. He had painted a gloomy picture to gain misplaced sympathy - Merely stating that the appellant received the impugned order late for reasons attributable to him, he is not absolved of his obligation to adhere to the limitation prescribed by law. Laxity does not add to longevity of a remedy which exhaust with the passage of time following doctrine of resjudicata. Casual approach of appellant shows its scanty regard to law. Had there been bonafide, the appellant would have pursued its right without painting a gloomy picture and abusing the process of law. There cannot be presumption of deliberate delay on account of culpable negligence or mala fide. But reasons of delay explained must be acceptable to law. The appellant failed to satisfy to law that it had made every effort to come out with clean hands to seek condonation of delay ascertaining status of adjudication after completion of hearing. When his associate Shri Mool Chand Sharma suffering penalty in the deal of mis-declared import in the self same adjudication came in appeal duly to Tribunal - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Adjudication process, Service of impugned order, Knowledge of adjudication consequences, Allegations of fraud, Prejudice to revenue, Vigilant approach in legal remedies, Abuse of process of law, Consequences of delay in legal proceedings.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of delay in filing an appeal and the subsequent application for condonation of delay. The appellant filed an appeal against an order of adjudication dated 31/08/2010, stating that the impugned order was served on him on 04.03.2012. The application for condonation of delay was initially submitted without mentioning the number of days of delay, which was later rectified to state 3 days of delay. The Revenue argued that the appellant, along with others, was involved in mis-declaration of imports and cannot claim innocence regarding the adjudication consequences. The appellant's counsel contended that there was no deliberate delay in filing the appeal and emphasized repeated efforts made to obtain the impugned order.

The Tribunal examined the facts and arguments presented by both parties. It noted that the appellant's approach towards the condonation of delay demonstrated a casual attitude towards legal proceedings. The Revenue highlighted the appellant's involvement in fraudulent activities related to import declarations, raising concerns about condoning the delay and potential prejudice to revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely legal remedies and the consequences of delay in litigation, stressing that a litigant should not abuse the process of law by filing time-barred appeals.

The judgment underscored the significance of being vigilant and diligent in pursuing legal remedies, especially in cases where delays could prejudice the opposing party or the revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's lack of vigilance, coupled with the significant delay in filing the appeal, indicated a failure to meet the legal standards required for condonation of delay. Ultimately, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the rejection of the stay application and the appeal itself.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the principles of timely legal remedies, the consequences of delay in legal proceedings, and the necessity for litigants to approach courts with clean hands and vigilance. It highlights the implications of abuse of the legal process and emphasizes the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines in seeking redressal through legal avenues.