2016 (10) TMI 666 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act - Held that - the law of limitation is founded upon public policy. But, in the case on hand, another Director has already filed an appeal in time. It is pending consideration before the Tribunal. The appellant herein is the Managing Director of the company. Therefore, there is no reason for him to be so negligent as not to pursue a remedy, when one other Director has been prompt in pursuing. The Order-in-Original has allowed redemption of goods upon payment of ₹ 40 lakhs. The penalty imposed is ₹ 1.38 crores. Hence, in cases of this nature, the Tribunal cannot decide the case with pedantic approach especially when another appeal is pending. Delay condoned - the Tribunal may take up the application for waiver and the application for stay and decide in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing a regular appeal before the Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the decision of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal that refused to condone the delay in filing a regular appeal. The Order-in-Original directed the confiscation of goods seized under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of fines and duties. The Tribunal dismissed the condone delay application citing lack of sufficient cause and negligence on the appellant's part. However, it was noted that another Director had timely filed an appeal, indicating the appellant's negligence. The Tribunal's decision was criticized for a pedantic approach, especially when another appeal was pending.

The Managing Director of the company, the appellant, was expected to pursue remedies diligently, especially when another Director had already taken prompt action. The Tribunal's decision was questioned concerning the redemption of goods and the penalty imposed. The Tribunal's approach was criticized for not considering the unique circumstances of the case and for dismissing the condone delay application without sufficient cause. The appellant's negligence was a crucial point of contention in the appeal.

The learned Standing Counsel mentioned the possibility of a pre-deposit requirement, which would be considered after the delay was condoned and the application was heard. The Tribunal was expected to assess the application for waiver of pre-deposit in light of relevant amendments. The judgment allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to consider the application for waiver and stay in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and the related CMP was closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of diligently pursuing remedies and criticized the Tribunal's decision for not considering the unique circumstances of the case.