2018 (7) TMI 625 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Time Limitation - appeals having been filed beyond the stipulated period of 60 days - It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was not aware of the Customs procedure and hence it had filed an appeal against the OIO before the Asst. Commissioner vide acknowledgement dated 08.06.2010 - Held that - The discretion to condone the delay is a statutory power and is not a matter of right for the appellant to expect the delay to be condoned automatically, without there being at least a request in some form or the other. At the same time, judicial propriety demands that in the interest of justice a delay could be condoned even if there is a verbal request - The appellant being a reputed company, would necessarily be guided by able hands/consultants in all aspects of taxation etc., and it is therefore strange for such a reputed company to plead ignorance. It appropriate to put the assessee to terms - The assessee is directed to pay costs of ₹ 25,000/- for each appeal, that is a total of ₹ 50,000/- for both the appeals for restoration of the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for denovo proceedings. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of appeals by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as hit by limitation, condonation of delay, proper examination of classification issue.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejecting them as being beyond the stipulated period of 60 days. The Ld. Commissioner observed that while the delay was within condonable limits, the appellant did not file a petition requesting for condonation of delay, resulting in rejection without a decision on merits.

2. The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the Commissioner's action in not condoning the delay was incorrect. The appellant claimed to have requested 15 days to file the petition for condonation and highlighted the issue of classification, which they believed was not properly examined by the Commissioner.

3. During the hearing, the Ld. Consultant for the appellant and the Ld. AR for the Revenue presented their arguments. The appellant contended that they were not aware of Customs procedures and cited legal precedents to support their case for condoning the delay.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the discretion to condone delay is a statutory power and not an automatic right. While judicial propriety allows for condonation in the interest of justice, the appellant, being a reputed company, was expected to respond promptly when the lack of an application for condonation was pointed out. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pay costs for restoration of the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh proceedings, with a written request for condonation.

5. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the Commissioner for denovo proceedings after setting aside the original orders. The appellant was instructed to complete the formalities for condonation of delay, and the Commissioner was directed to pass an order on merits after affording reasonable opportunities to the assessee, with all issues left open.