TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dismissal of appeal due to significant delay of 3053 days without cost imposition</h1> <h3>Commissioner Versus PSA Sical Terminals Ltd.</h3> The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal in M.P. No. 1 of 2013 and C.M.A. SR. No. 85936 of 2012 due to the Revenue's significant delay of 3053 days in ... Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 3053 days - Held that:- documents placed before this Court that the letter dated 16-4-2009 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner to the Superintendent of Customs, Legal Cell informed about engaging the services of P. Bhuvaneswari, Advocate. Thereafterwards, on 15-9-2009, there was yet another letter stating that there was no appeal papers filed before the Registry. Thereafterwards, again on 1-10-2009, there was yet another communication from the Superintendent of Customs to the Commissioner of Customs informing about the handing over of the papers. After 1-10-2009, letters came from the Department were on 11-6-2010, 18-7-2011, 19-7-2011 and 17-8-2012. The appeal before this Court was filed only on 4-10-2012. Except for the correspondences, there being no explanation for the delay in between 2009 and 2012 and on which date they came to know about the non-filing of the appeal, we do not find any justifiable ground to condone the delay. - Condonation denied. Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Justifiability of condoning the delayIn this judgment by the Madras High Court, the main issue revolves around the delay in filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Revenue, spanning over 3053 days. The case initially involved the appointment of a senior standing counsel, who later handed over the matter to another counsel. The appeal was supposed to have been filed on 14-6-2004, but when the second counsel attempted to file a memo of appearance, the papers were not available at the Registry until 4-10-2012.The court examined the documents presented, which included various letters exchanged between the Assistant Commissioner, Superintendent of Customs, and the Commissioner of Customs regarding engaging the services of an advocate and the status of the appeal papers. Despite multiple correspondences between 2009 and 2012, the court found no satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal. As a result, the court concluded that there were no justifiable grounds to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in M.P. No. 1 of 2013 and C.M.A. SR. No. 85936 of 2012, without imposing any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
