2022 (10) TMI 706 - AT - Customs

Seeking condonation of delay of 715 days in filing the appeal - appeal was filed on March 21, 2022 assailing the order in original dated March 8, 2019 which was admittedly received by the appellant on March 12, 2019 - HELD THAT - We agree with the authorized representative for the Revenue that it covered those cases where the limitation fell after March 2020 during the Covid period. In the present case, the due date for filing the application was June 10, 2019 several months before the Covid-19 pandemic had even started. Therefore, this order will not come to the aid of the appellant. So far as the substantive ground on which the delay is sought to be condoned is that the appellant s counsel had prepared and drafted the present appeal but the concerned associate of the counsel s office had left without notice and, therefore, there was a delay. The only counsels on record in the present appeal as is evident from the Vakalatnama are Shri Priyadarshi Manish and three of his associates in whose favour a Vakalatnama was filed on March 02, 2022. There is no Vakalatnama on record to show that any other counsel was engaged to file an appeal in the matter. Further, neither the counsel who is said to have first taken up the matter and failed to file the appeal has been named in the application nor has the name of the associate who is said to have left to the office without notice been indicated. There are no reasonable grounds have been made out seeking condonation of delay of 715 days in filing the present appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, grounds for condonation of delay, applicability of Supreme Court order on limitation extension due to Covid-19, sufficiency of grounds for condonation of delay, dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay of 715 days in filing an appeal against an order dated March 8, 2019. The appellant filed the appeal on March 21, 2022, well after the due date of June 10, 2019. The appellant cited various grounds for the delay, including the departure of an associate of the appellant's counsel without notice, and the applicability of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order on limitation extension due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's order regarding limitation extension during the pandemic was intended for cases where the limitation fell after March 2020, which did not apply in this situation where the due date was in June 2019. The tribunal also highlighted that the appellant failed to provide specific details such as the name of the counsel or associate responsible for the delay. Despite the appellant's claim of a prepared appeal, the lack of concrete evidence or affidavit from the alleged responsible party led the tribunal to dismiss the grounds for condonation of the delay.

Ultimately, the tribunal found that the appellant failed to present reasonable grounds for the significant delay in filing the appeal. As a result, both miscellaneous applications seeking condonation of delay were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself. The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing concrete and verifiable reasons when seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings to ensure fairness and adherence to procedural requirements.