Appellate Tribunal emphasizes timely action on delay condonation to ensure access to justice

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata allowed the appeal solely on the issue of delay condonation, emphasizing the appellant's responsibility to seek condonation of delay. The case was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) as the appellant failed to move the condonation application, leading to deprivation of justice. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of adhering to procedural requirements and exercising discretionary power under Rule 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, to ensure access to justice and prevent being barred from the justice process.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, Discretionary power of Commissioner (Appeals) in condoning delay, Deprivation of justice due to failure to move condonation application, Appellant's responsibility to seek condonation of delay, Exercise of discretionary power under Rule 128 of Customs Act, 1962.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, the issue revolved around the delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant acknowledged a delay of 715 days in seeking appeal, which fell beyond the 60-day limit but within the 90-day period. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal without exercising discretionary power due to the lack of a delay condonation petition. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to move the condonation application, leading to the Commissioner's inability to consider the case as per the law, despite mentioning Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment highlighted the opposition by the Departmental Representative (D.R.) against condoning the 715 days delay. However, the D.R. acknowledged that the appellant was deprived of justice by not submitting the condonation application before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of seeking condonation of delay, as failure to do so could result in being barred from the justice process. Citing the Master Katiji case, the Tribunal emphasized that forums exist not to legalize injustice but to ensure justice. Therefore, it directed the appellant to approach the Commissioner (Appeals) for condonation of delay, enabling the exercise of discretionary power under Rule 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal solely on the issue of delay condonation and remitted the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result, the stay petition was deemed infructuous. The judgment underscored the appellant's responsibility to seek condonation of delay and the significance of the Commissioner's discretionary power in such matters, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural requirements to ensure access to justice.

---