2016 (12) TMI 1371 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Held that - There was no occasion for appellant to file the appeal unless and until the corrigendum was issued. It is admitted position that the appeal was filed within seven days from the date of issue of corrigendum. Since the corrigendum is part and parcel of the impugned order the period for filing the appeal should be reckoned from the date of corrigendum - no delay in filing the appeal. Even if there is a delay, the condonation of delay application has to be allowed. Application for early hearing - Held that - even though it is the second round of litigation, the appeal is of 2016 only. This Tribunal is overburdened with cases running from the year 2005 onwards. Therefore, it will not be proper to take up the appeal of 2016 on out-of-turn. COD allowed - early hearing dismissed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay application for filing the appeal.
2. Early hearing application for the appeal.

Condonation of Delay Application:
The appellant filed a COD application due to a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal from the date of the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was filed within seven days from the date of issue of corrigendum in the matter of the impugned order. The appellant argued that the appeal was well within the time from the date of the corrigendum, and even if there was a delay, it should be condoned. The Asstt. Commissioner (AR) representing the Revenue opposed the condonation, stating that there was a clear delay in filing the appeal from the date of the order-in-appeal. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the appeal was filed within seven days from the date of the corrigendum, which rectified the shortcomings in the original order. Since the corrigendum was part of the impugned order, the period for filing the appeal should be reckoned from the date of the corrigendum. The Tribunal found no delay in filing the appeal and allowed the application for condonation of delay.

Early Hearing Application:
The appellant requested an early hearing for the appeal, citing that it pertained to the year 2008 and was the second round of litigation. The appellant argued that due to the previous remand, the matter deserved to be heard out of turn. However, the Tribunal noted that despite being the second round of litigation, the appeal was of 2016 only. Considering the Tribunal's heavy caseload with cases running from 2005 onwards, it was deemed inappropriate to prioritize the 2016 appeal for an out-of-turn hearing. The Tribunal dismissed the early hearing application, stating that the reasons provided were not satisfactory for prioritizing the appeal.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI addressed the issues of condonation of delay application and early hearing application for the appeal, ultimately allowing the condonation of delay but dismissing the early hearing application based on the year of the appeal and the Tribunal's caseload.