2020 (3) TMI 923 - AT - Customs

Application for Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay in Filing | Lack of Due Diligence

M/s. Super Eco Automotive Co. LLP Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export)

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to reasons of late receipt of order, ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient ground for delay or not - HELD THAT:- The order as has been challenged vide the impugned appeal is acknowledged to have been received by the party within 10 days of the day it was announced. The officer, who is mentioned to have been responsible for the impugned matter, no doubt, had left appellant’s job on 9th July, 2019, but applicant is silent about the date of joining of the person, who succeeded him. Otherwise also after the day the person left there still was sufficient time with the appellant to make necessary arrangements and to avoid the impugned delay. Thus, we are of the opinion that there is absence of due diligence on part of the applicant. The another ground taken about the death in a family is also opined to not to be the sufficient cause for explaining the impugned delay as the death was post expiry of the period of limitation. Admittedly the order was received on 21st June, 2019. The period of limitation to file the impugned appeal, therefore, stands expired on 20th September, 2019. Hence, the same ground is also not opined sufficient cause for the relief sought vide the impugned application. Delay cannot be condoned - COD application dismissed. Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to reasons of late receipt of order, employee leaving the job, and family member's death.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal was considered. The appellant sought condonation of delay citing reasons such as delayed receipt of the order, the employee responsible for the matter leaving the job, and a family member's death. The appellant received the order within 10 days of its announcement, but the officer handling the matter had left the job. The tribunal noted that the appellant did not mention the date of the successor's joining, implying that there was still time to make arrangements to avoid delay. The tribunal found a lack of due diligence on the appellant's part. Additionally, the ground of a family member's death was deemed insufficient as it occurred after the period of limitation had expired. Since the order was received on 21st June 2019 and the limitation period expired on 20th September 2019, the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as well.