2023 (7) TMI 1129 - AT - Customs

Tribunal allows appeal despite delay, stresses importance of avoiding dismissal over procedural issues.

Shri Gopal Sharma Versus Commissioner of Customs (Exports)

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's plea for condonation of the 18-day delay, emphasizing the importance of not dismissing meritorious matters due to ... Condonation of delay of 18 days in filing appeal - delay due to the ill health of the appellant who had fallen sick when he visited his village during the period of limitation - sufficient reason for delay or not - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) could have condoned the delay for a period of 30 days over and above the aforementioned 60 days. The appeal before him was filed during the said extended period of 30 days. No doubt that para 5.3 in the order under challenge has the reasons for not considering the request for condonation of delay. But as on date it is observed that the contentions of the appellant about reason for delay of 18 days have duly been supported by his affidavit. It has been deposed that he was away to a village where he had fallen sick and thus was unable to come to Delhi to sign the papers required for filing appeal. He deposed that the moment he got recovered he immediately contacted his lawyer to file the present appeal, however delay of 18 days occurred. The possibility of getting no proper medical aid in a village cannot be ruled out. Hence the absence of document stands reasonably explained. The Commissioner (A) has not considered the said explanation as sufficient /reasonable for want of any document to support. The appellant has now produced an affidavit - it is opined that the plea of condonation has always to be looked into liberally, more so, for the reason that the lis has to be adjudicated on merits. The delay is condoned - matter remanded to commissioner (Appeal) to adjudicate the appeal on merits - The appeal stands allowed by way of remand. Issues involved: Appeal against dismissal of appeal on grounds of limitation, condonation of delay of 18 days.Summary:The present appeal was filed to challenge the dismissal of the appeal against the Order-in-Original purely on the grounds of limitation, specifically to determine if the delay of 18 days could be condoned. The appellant cited the delay was due to his ill health preventing him from signing and filing the appeal papers within the prescribed time period. The appellant's counsel relied on an affidavit supporting the health-related delay, requesting an opportunity to present submissions on the merits of the appeal.The Departmental Representative argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had valid reasons for refusing to condone the delay, citing statutory provisions limiting the condonation period to 30 days beyond the initial 60-day period. The Departmental Representative referenced a Supreme Court decision and contended that the delay was not supported by sufficient documents, advocating for the dismissal of the appeal.After hearing both sides and considering the statutory provisions, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's explanation for the 18-day delay was supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal emphasized the need to balance substantial justice with technical considerations, highlighting the importance of not dismissing meritorious matters at the threshold due to procedural delays. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits.In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's plea for condonation of the 18-day delay and remanded the matter for further consideration on the merits, allowing the appeal by way of remand.