2024 (11) TMI 139 - HC - Customs

Delay of 66 days filling appeal before before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II)/first respondent - as argued impugned order was sent to old address of the petitioner company, as the petitioner was unaware of the same, he failed to file the appeal in time - recovery of drawback for exported goods, interest, and penalty - HELD THAT - In the present case, the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal is that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order since it was sent to its old address. In view of the settled proposition of law that when cause for substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should be given due weightage, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 66 days in filing the Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel on either side submitted that they will contest the case before the Appellate Authority. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to entertain this Writ Petition by remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority for passing appropriate orders.

Issues:
Challenging order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the first respondent regarding recovery of drawback for exported goods, interest, and penalty. Delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Authority due to impugned order sent to old address. Request for condonation of delay and direction for Appellate Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent seeking recovery of drawback for exported goods, interest, and penalty. The petitioner argued that show cause notices were issued for the period 2004 to 2014 under Customs rules. The second respondent passed an ex-parte order due to the petitioner's non-appearance at a personal hearing during the Covid-19 pandemic. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent was rejected as it was beyond the limitation period. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to the impugned order being sent to the old address, rendering them unaware of the same. The petitioner requested the Court to condone the delay and direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal.

The Court considered the petitioner's reason for the delay and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It was noted that the impugned order was sent to the old address of the petitioner, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The Court, in line with the principle of substantial justice, decided to condone the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. Both parties agreed to contest the case before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for further consideration and appropriate orders.

The Court passed orders to condone the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the order of the first respondent, and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law. The Appellate Authority was instructed to provide a sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and resolve the matter expeditiously. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

← Previous Next →