2024 (7) TMI 772 - HC - Customs

Dismissal of appellant s application for condonation of delay of about 145 days - failure to pay interest on the amounts refunded - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has simply dismissed the condonation of delay application by observing that appellant has failed to provide any sufficient cause to condone the delay. Though one may say that there was a delay of almost 2 years, the time between 15th March 2020 to 2nd November 2021 was a time when everything was shut due to COVID pandemic. It is mentioned that the legislature has conferred power to condone the delay to enable doing substantial justice to the parties. By delaying the filing of appeal appellant did not stand to benefit. If we do not condone the delay, there is possibility that a meritorious matter may be thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice could be defeated. The Registry of CESTAT shall take further steps in the matter on the basis that the appeal has been restored to file. Since the matter relates to year 2006, CESTAT is requested to dispose the appeal as early as possible and in any case by 31st March 2025 - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the dismissal of application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal regarding interest on refunded amounts.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the dismissal of the appellant's application for condonation of delay of about 145 days, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal itself. The appeal was related to the respondent's failure to pay interest on refunded amounts. The appellant claimed to have received the impugned order on 3rd June 2019 and a corrigendum on 22nd August 2019, but the appeal was filed only on 10th November 2021. The Tribunal acknowledged that the period between 23rd March 2020 and 2nd October 2021 had to be excluded from the calculation of delay.

2. The appellant argued that the delay was approximately 155 days, not 145 days as mentioned. The reason provided for the delay was the departure of an individual named Mukesh Jain, who was in charge at the relevant time, due to old age and failing health. The management was unaware of the pending issue until September 2021 when the appellant's Chartered Accountant raised a query about the unchallenged orders dated 23rd May 2019 and 13th August 2019.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay application, stating that the appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. Despite the almost two-year delay, the period between 15th March 2020 and 2nd November 2021 was highlighted as a time when operations were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. The High Court, considering the circumstances, decided to condone the delay, emphasizing that the power to condone delay is meant to ensure substantial justice to the parties. Not condoning the delay could lead to the dismissal of a meritorious matter at the outset, defeating the cause of justice. The Court directed the Registry of CESTAT to proceed with the appeal, requesting an expedited disposal by 31st March 2025, given the matter's relation to the year 2006.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the delay being condoned to enable substantial justice and prevent the risk of a meritorious matter being unjustly dismissed.