2020 (2) TMI 203 - HC - Customs

High Court quashes Tribunal's orders, restores appeal for further hearing, emphasizes natural justice.

The High Court allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and quashing the Tribunal's orders. It restored the appeal for further hearing, considering ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - financial hardships of the appellant not considered - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Although the sufficient cause assigned may not be quite convincing, yet having regard to the merits of the main matter and also with a view to give one opportunity to the appellant to make good his case in appeal before the Tribunal, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant. The delay in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned. The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are hereby quashed and set aside. The main appeal is restored to the original file of the Appellate Tribunal - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Delay in filing appeal condonation.2. Financial hardships consideration.3. Review application rejection.4. Merits of the main matter consideration.5. Principle of natural justice violation.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the order dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay. The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay citing financial hardships and preoccupation with export activities as reasons. The Tribunal found gross negligence on the appellant's part and dismissed the appeal. The High Court considered the merits of the main matter and decided to condone the delay, quashing the Tribunal's orders and restoring the appeal for further hearing.2. The Tribunal's decision not to consider financial hardships and the reasons for delay led to the rejection of the appeal. The High Court, after reviewing the circumstances and the main matter, decided to allow the appeal by considering the financial hardships faced by the appellant and the need for natural justice.3. The Review Application filed by the appellant was rejected by the Tribunal on the grounds of improper reasons given for the delay. The High Court, after a detailed analysis of the case, found that the rejection was not justified and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of giving the appellant an opportunity to present their case.4. The Tribunal's failure to consider the merits of the main matter and deciding solely on the delay led to the dismissal of the appeal. The High Court, after considering the grounds of appeal and the circumstances, decided to restore the appeal to the original file for further proceedings, emphasizing the need to address the main matter on its merits.5. The Tribunal's decision not to follow the principle of natural justice and deciding solely on the delay without considering all aspects of the case was deemed a violation. The High Court rectified this by allowing the appeal, quashing the Tribunal's orders, and restoring the appeal for a fair hearing, ensuring the principles of natural justice were upheld throughout the proceedings.