2014 (10) TMI 115 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - revision application - Held that - order-in-appeal was received by the petitioner on 10-10-2001, the period of limitation of three months, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, would expire on 9-1-2002, and the revision has been dispatched on 8-1-2002, for which, proof has been filed in the form of postal receipt - at the time of raising a query on 25-1-2002, the administrative office would have verified whether the revision has been filed in time and whether it had been communicated to the petitioner/applicant. In that event the petitioner would have had the opportunity of filing the application for condonation of delay, as provided under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 129DD of the Customs Act - revision has been dispatched on 8-1-2002, which is well within the period of limitation, and therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner should be treated as filed in time and the order of the first respondent deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for passing orders on merits. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Consideration of condonation of delay in filing the revision application.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their revision application due to being filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order stated that the revision application was not filed within the three-month limitation period, and no reasons for delay or application for condonation of delay were provided by the petitioner. The Government rejected the revision application based on this delay.

2. The petitioner argued that the revision was dispatched within the limitation period, relying on a judgment from the Karnataka High Court regarding the date of lodging appeals through the post office. The petitioner contended that the revision should be considered filed in time. Additionally, it was highlighted that the administrative office could have verified the filing date when raising queries, giving the petitioner an opportunity to apply for condonation of delay as per the proviso to Section 129DD(2) of the Customs Act.

3. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument, noting that the revision was dispatched within the limitation period, thus should be deemed as filed in time. The court set aside the first respondent's order and remitted the matter for further consideration on merits. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded in the case.