High Court allows writ petition challenging Customs Commissioner's order due to minimal delay in filing appeals. The High Court of Madras allowed the writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) due to a minimal delay of less than two ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
High Court allows writ petition challenging Customs Commissioner's order due to minimal delay in filing appeals.
The High Court of Madras allowed the writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) due to a minimal delay of less than two days in filing the appeals under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the usual stance against extending limitation periods, the Court exercised discretion considering the unique circumstances, emphasizing that statutory rights should not be denied on technicalities. The Court set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay, directed acceptance of the appeal petitions, and ordered adjudication on merits without awarding costs.
Issues: Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the ground of delayed filing of appeals under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The High Court of Madras, through Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, heard a writ petition challenging an order issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 26-8-2011. The order was not based on the merits of the case but on the fact that the appeals were filed beyond the condonable period specified under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The writ petition had been pending since 2012, with the respondents' counter-affidavit addressing both the merits of the case and reiterating the stance taken in the impugned order. Despite the appeals being belatedly filed, the delay was less than two days. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner's right to file appeals, being a statutory right, should not be denied on a technicality. While the Court had previously ruled against extending the limitation period prescribed by statute, it exercised discretion in this case due to the unique circumstances and the minimal delay. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The first respondent was directed to accept the appeal petitions, provide notice to the petitioner, grant a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative, and adjudicate the appeals on their merits and in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in this matter.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
