2023 (8) TMI 1002 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 23 days in filing this appeal - sufficient reasons for delay or not - HELD THAT - It is a settled position in law that the appeal should not be dismissed for such reasons and the appellant should be given the opportunity to argue the matter on merits. In the case of MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR VERSUS RAMCHARAN (D) BY LRS. 2002 (4) TMI 944 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the High Court ought to have been taken a liberal, and not a rigid and too technical a view of the issue before it and should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and concentrated on examining whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law worth being heard by the High Court. In our opinion, a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the High Court is made out. The said delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before him is condoned and matter remanded back to the Appellate Authority for decision on merits and after following the principles of natural justice - the order of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld.

Summary

Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal, applicability of Notification No 50/2018-Customs dated 30.06.2018.

Condonation of Delay Issue:
The appeal in question arose from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & CGST, Noida, where the main issue was the condonation of a 23-day delay in filing the appeal. The Appellant cited the misplacement of necessary documents as the reason for the delay. However, the Commissioner (Appeal) found the reason provided by the Appellant to be insufficient, considering it as a casual excuse for missing the appeal deadline. The Commissioner (Appeal) noted that the Appellant had acknowledged paying excess duty and being aware of not receiving the benefit of Notification No 50/2018-Customs dated 30.06.2018. Consequently, the appeal was rejected on the grounds of exceeding the limitation period, despite not delving into the merits of the case.

Decision and Legal Precedents:
Upon review, the Member (Technical) found that dismissing the appeal solely based on the delay was unjustified. Citing legal precedents such as Municipal Corporation, Gwalior vs Ramcharan and Kothari Sugars And Chemicals Ltd, it was emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Member (Technical) highlighted the importance of a liberal approach in condoning delays to ensure fairness and uphold the principle of natural justice. Drawing from the Supreme Court's stance on the matter, the Member (Technical) concluded that there was sufficient cause to condone the 23-day delay. Consequently, the original order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits, following due process.

Conclusion:
In light of the legal principles discussed and the need for a just and equitable approach, the delay in filing the appeal was deemed justified for condonation. The decision to reject the appeal based solely on the delay was overturned, emphasizing the importance of allowing parties to argue on merits rather than being dismissed on technical grounds. The matter was remitted back for a fresh consideration, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are adhered to in the adjudication process.