2014 (2) TMI 1105 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Resignation of officer in-charge of matter - Held that - The only ground adduced in the COD application is that Shri Hiresh Dhakan, who was dealing with the mater left the company and therefore, nobody else was aware of the pendency of the appeal and only when Mr. Pinglay joined in May 2013 the matter was brought to the notice. There is no explanation why after Mr. Hiresh Dhakan left anybody else could take necessary action in filing the appeal. Even after Mr. Pinglay joined in May 2003, there is a delay of six months and the appeal has been relied only in 18/10/2013. From the records, it is seen that Mr. Pinglay was with the appellant firm all through and therefore, the excuse offered is only an afterthought and cannot be accepted. Thus, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellant sought condonation of a delay of 984 days in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to the resignation of a key personnel, Shri Hiresh Dhakan, who was handling the matter. The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned based on the merits of the case. The appellant relied on legal precedents emphasizing a liberal approach in condoning delays, citing cases such as Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO.

The Revenue, represented by the Ld. Additional Commissioner, opposed the condonation of delay, contending that Shri Pinglay, who later joined the appellant company, was already associated with the appellant during the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue argued that the excuse of delay due to Shri Pinglay joining in May 2013 was unfounded, as he was already part of the appellant company earlier.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found the appellant's explanation for the delay unsatisfactory. The Tribunal highlighted that even after Shri Pinglay joined in May 2013, there was a further delay of six months before filing the appeal in October 2013. The Tribunal noted that the excuse offered by the appellant was an afterthought and lacked a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay.

The Tribunal referred to legal principles concerning the condonation of delay, emphasizing that a delay without a reasonable and acceptable explanation cannot be condoned merely because a government entity is involved. Citing various legal cases, the Tribunal underscored the importance of timely legal remedies and the public policy behind limitation laws. The Tribunal noted that in this case, the delay of over two and a half years was inadequately explained, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and subsequently, the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal itself, based on the unsatisfactory explanation provided for the significant delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit.