2017 (1) TMI 1222 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay of 332 days - Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1944 - Held that - it appears that there was a bona fide delay on the part of the appellant in preferring the appeal in time before the respondent. Therefore, while exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court ought to have adopted a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and the case, the delay is of few days. The appellant was reasonably diligent in pursuing the appeal/applications before the competent authorities, and there was no negligence on his part in preferring the Appeal. A valuable right is secured to the successful party of which he should not be deprived of lightly. While dealing with an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay, the Court ought not to light heartedly disturb the legal right accrued to the appellant on failure to prefer the appeal or application within the time prescribed for it - delay condoned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay of 332 days in filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay.
3. Applicability of legal principles in cases of delay in filing appeals.
4. Consideration of bona fide reasons for delay in filing an appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Tax Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1944 challenging the dismissal of their appeal by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal due to a delay of 332 days. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the applicable law and should have considered the case on its merits rather than dismissing it solely on technical grounds. The appellant contended that they acted diligently and there was a bona fide delay in filing the appeal.

2. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for condonation of delay, prompting the appellant to approach the High Court. The Court, after considering the submissions from both parties, found that the Tribunal had taken a very technical approach in dismissing the application. The Court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach in such cases and distinguished between inordinate delays and delays of a few days. The Court held that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 332 days.

3. The Court highlighted that the appellant had forwarded the necessary documents to the concerned agency for filing the appeal, but no action was taken by the agency. It was noted that the appellant was reasonably diligent in pursuing the matter and had not been negligent in preferring the appeal. The Court emphasized that valuable legal rights should not be lightly disturbed due to delays in filing appeals, especially when there are genuine reasons for the delay.

4. Consequently, the High Court allowed the Tax Appeal, quashing the Tribunal's order and directing a deposit towards the cost of litigation. The Court instructed that the Tribunal should now decide the appeal on its merits without being influenced by the observations made in the High Court's judgment. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of considering bona fide reasons for delays in filing appeals and the need for a balanced and pragmatic approach in such matters.