2018 (5) TMI 520 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 147 days in filing appeal - case of appellant is that Shri. Anilkumar Dugar, who was appointed to look after the filing of appeals, was traveling and due to the same had lost track of the Appeal that the same could not be filed on times - Held that - the reasons stated by the applicant in the application as well as in the submissions during argument do clearly appear that there is a negligence on the part of the applicants in filing the appeals - there are no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. However in litigation, the most important part is that justice should be delivered by deciding the matter on merit. Therefore, the dismissal of appeal only for delay will not render justice. Therefore, we condone the delay but subject to payment of cost of ₹ 10,000/-. COD application allowed on payment of a cost.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, negligence in filing appeals, sufficiency of cause for delay, justice based on merits.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of condoning a delay of 147 days in filing appeals. The applicants cited reasons for the delay, primarily attributing it to the negligence of one of the parties involved in handling the appeal process. The delay was explained as a result of the responsible party losing track of the appeal due to business-related travel. Another factor contributing to the delay was the lack of familiarity of the proprietor with customs procedures, necessitating assistance from the individual handling the appeal. The applicants emphasized that they faced genuine difficulties, and the delay did not benefit their case. They also highlighted the strength of their case on merits and the potential deprivation of their defense opportunity if the delay was not condoned.

The applicants referenced legal precedents to support their argument for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for a liberal view when genuine reasons for delay exist. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by the Commissioner, objected to condoning the delay, contending that the reasons presented did not align between the application and the arguments. The Commissioner argued that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, suggesting that the condonation applications should be dismissed.

Upon weighing the submissions from both sides, the tribunal acknowledged the negligence on the part of the applicants in filing the appeals. Despite this, the tribunal recognized the paramount importance of delivering justice based on merits rather than solely dismissing appeals due to procedural delays. Consequently, the tribunal decided to condone the delay, subject to the condition of each applicant paying a cost of ?10,000 within a specified timeframe. This decision aimed to ensure that the appeals would be adjudicated on their merits while addressing the delay issue through a monetary penalty, maintaining the balance between procedural compliance and substantive justice.