2017 (10) TMI 1268 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants condonation of 204-day appeal delay despite unconvincing reasons

M/s. Composite Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs City Customs Commissionerate Bangalore

The Tribunal allowed the condonation of a 204-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, despite finding the reasons ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - case of appellant is that the delay caused in filing the present appeal is not deliberate and intentional but on account of the various reasons stated in the application - Held that: - though the reasons stated in the COD application for filing the appeal belatedly are not very convincing, but in the interest of justice, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 20,000/- - application allowed. Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The applicant sought condonation of a 204-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The reasons cited for the delay included the Managing Director's medical condition, financial difficulties, lack of qualified staff for legal matters, and misunderstanding of the Order-in-Appeal's implications.2. The applicant explained that the Managing Director underwent surgery and was under treatment, leading to depression due to business closure and financial challenges. Medical certificates were provided to support this claim. It was also mentioned that the company lacked staff for legal matters, and family members serving as Directors were unable to assist in improving the business.3. The appellant initially misunderstood the Order-in-Appeal, thinking it required verification of facts rather than challenging the confiscation of imported goods. Legal advice clarified the need for an appeal, resulting in the delay. The learned AR for the Revenue contested the application, arguing that the reasons provided were insufficient. He highlighted the Managing Director's involvement in previous proceedings and the simplicity of the Order-in-Appeal.4. The AR for the Revenue contended that the remand order had been implemented, making the present appeal unnecessary. Citing decisions from various High Courts, he argued against the maintainability of the appeal based on precedents. However, the Tribunal found the reasons for delay unconvincing but allowed the application in the interest of justice, subject to a cost of &8377; 20,000.5. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay was based on balancing the interests of both parties, acknowledging the lack of strong reasons for the delay but opting for a just resolution. The appellant was directed to deposit the specified cost by a set date, ensuring compliance with the order.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision to allow the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.