2019 (5) TMI 243 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 250 days in filing appeal - non-compliance with the pre-deposit - HELD THAT - In the present case though unreasonable delay has accrued in filing the appeals, the same is attributable to the incapacity of the appellant to make payment of pre-deposit. Not condoning the delay would further increase the plight to the appellants as they loss business and market reputation and there could be merit in their appeals that would ensure justice to them. The prejudice to the OP may be to the extent of financial loss which can well be mitigated by way of cost. The delay of 250 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal is condoned subject of payment of cost of ₹ 10,000/- each by each of the appellant - appeal admitted.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals due to inability to arrange pre-deposit for penalty imposed on company, directors, and manager.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with four applications filed to condone a delay of 250 days in filing appeals (Nos. C/ 88996, 88999, 89003, 88998/2018) due to the inability of the lady directors and manager to arrange 7.5% pre-deposit for the penalty imposed on the company, its directors, and manager. The penalty amounts were substantial, with &8377; 7,00,000/- on each director, &8377; 15,00,000/- on the manager, and &8377; 10,00,000/- on the company. The appellants claimed they lost business and faced market repercussions after being penalized, even though they had cleared all dues to the Customs department. The delay was attributed to the appellants' financial incapacity to make the pre-deposit.

The appellant's counsel requested the delay to be condoned to ensure substantial justice, claiming merit in the appeals. The department's counsel initially opposed the condonation of delay but later suggested that imposing adequate costs on the appellant could compensate for the department's losses, allowing the appeals to proceed on merits. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision (2001) 9 SCC 106, emphasizing that a liberal approach should be adopted when the delay is minimal, without causing prejudice to the opposite party. The court highlighted the importance of advancing substantial justice while considering 'sufficient cause' for delay.

Despite acknowledging the unreasonable delay in filing the appeals, the Tribunal considered the appellant's inability to pay the pre-deposit as a valid reason. Not condoning the delay would worsen the appellants' situation, impacting their business and market reputation. The Tribunal found merit in the appeals, suggesting that justice could be served by allowing them to proceed. To mitigate any prejudice to the opposite party, the Tribunal imposed a cost of &8377; 10,000/- on each appellant, in line with the Supreme Court's principle. The delay of 250 days was ultimately condoned, subject to the payment of costs within 30 days of the order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal balanced the need for substantial justice with the financial constraints faced by the appellants, ultimately deciding to condone the delay in filing the appeals while imposing costs to address any potential prejudice to the department.