Tribunal grants condonation of delay in appeal, upholding appellant's right to seek writ remedies for justice

The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, highlighting the appellant's right to seek writ remedies and ensuring justice without bias or prejudice in the disposal of appeals under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal accepted the reason for the delay and granted condonation, directing the matter for disposal without considering other propositions not on record.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal against Order-in-Original.

Analysis:
The application for condonation of delay of 531 days in filing the appeal was made by M/s. Kellogg India Pvt Ltd against Order-in-Original No. Belapur/25-27/Taloja/R-III/COMMR/SFA/2016-17/BEL. The appellant initially sought a writ remedy from the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay but later withdrew the petition to avail normal appellate remedies. The High Court permitted the withdrawal, indicating the appellant's bona fides. The Tribunal inclined to allow the application after a perusal of the High Court's order, considering the circumstances presented by the appellant's counsel.

The respondent's Special Counsel argued against condonation, claiming a lack of justifiable cause for the delay. However, the Tribunal found this argument contradictory, stating that if statutory appeal provisions allow for condonation, there should be no need to invoke general laws of limitation. The Tribunal noted no precedent of resorting to general limitation laws instead of specific statutory provisions. Despite the respondent's insistence, the Tribunal found no substantive grounds to object to the relief sought by the appellant.

The Special Counsel cited a Supreme Court decision distinguishing between Courts, quasi-judicial bodies, and Tribunals, emphasizing the non-applicability of general limitation laws. However, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, asserting its authority to condone delays under the Customs Act, 1962, without limitation on discretion. The Tribunal highlighted its role in ensuring justice without bias, established under Article 323B of the Constitution.

The Tribunal clarified its position as a Tribunal under the Customs Act, not falling under the Supreme Court's categorization. It emphasized its power to dispense justice without peremptory dismissal, indicating that objections to seeking writ remedies are unwarranted. After considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal accepted the reason for the delay and granted condonation, directing the matter for disposal without considering other propositions not on record.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's right to seek writ remedies and ensuring justice without bias or prejudice in the disposal of appeals under the Customs Act, 1962.

---