2022 (9) TMI 1299 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of limitation since there was delay of 23 days in filing appeal - HELD THAT - Condonation of delay by the Commissioner (Appeals) is a discretionary power that can only be exercised favourably in the event sufficient cause is shown for such delay. Therefore, in the absence of proof of delivery of appeal memo allegedly sent through the Postal Department by the Appellant, interference by this Tribunal in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is uncalled for. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal dismissal on grounds of delay in filing and lack of condonation petition.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal where the Appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal without a condonation petition. The Appellant had not appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals), as evident from the written note submitted. The Appellant's request for a virtual hearing was denied, and only physical hearings were allowed post-Covid as per a circular. The written submissions were found to have improper sentence structure, making it difficult to understand the content clearly. The Appellant claimed to have sent a postal receipt addressed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) but failed to provide proof of delivery or a correlation between the sender and the Appellant company. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has discretionary power to condone delays only with sufficient cause shown. Without proof of delivery of the appeal memo sent by the Appellant, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II). The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient cause for delay when seeking condonation and the need for proper documentation to support claims in legal proceedings.