2020 (10) TMI 642 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of around 4700 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - HELD THAT - There is no denial in the communication dated 30.8.2019 placed on record by Revenue, about the aforesaid date of service of the impugned order by the department on the applicant. Thereafter as per the case records, the appeal has been filed by the applicant immediately on 26.7.2018 with the instant application. No doubt the Tribunal can condone the delay on showing the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma 2008 (7) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT has laid down that the words sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words sufficient cause in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant . Therefore in the peculiar facts of this case, sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for not preferring the appeal within the normal period of limitation. There is some negligence on the part of the applicant also as he did not take any steps to inquire about the status of his case before the adjudicating authority for so many years, therefore although I am condoning the delay but with a cost of ₹ 5,000/- to be deposited by the applicant within a period of 8 weeks to be paid to the PM CARES Fund . Application allowed - the registry is directed to list the appeal for hearing on its turn after the applicant file the proof of payment of cost with the Registry.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order dated 22.06.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Imports), Mumbai.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application for condonation of delay of around 4700 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order dated 22.06.2005. The delay was attributed to the negligence of the department, as per the applicant's affidavit. The department sent a communication regarding recovery of dues after 12 years to the changed address of the applicant, despite being informed about the change of address earlier. The impugned order dated 22.6.2005 sent to the old address was returned with remarks 'Not known'. The applicant received the certified copy of the impugned order on 26.7.2018. The Tribunal can condone the delay on showing sufficient cause, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma. Sufficient cause was shown by the applicant for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. However, the applicant was also negligent for not inquiring about the case status before the adjudicating authority for many years. The delay was condoned with a cost of ?5,000 to be deposited to the "PM CARES Fund" within 8 weeks.

The application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing after the applicant filed proof of payment of the cost with the Registry. The order was pronounced in the open court on 11.09.2020.