2002 (6) TMI 47 - HC - Customs

Court overturns CEGAT decision, allows appeal filing delay under Customs Act, emphasizes justice principles. Pay loader status arguments to be considered. Appeal to be decided in six months.

WWI CRANES LIMITED Versus KRISHNA MURTHY

WWI CRANES LIMITED Versus KRISHNA MURTHY - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 500 (Bom.) Issues:1. Delay in preferring the appeal to CEGAT under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Consideration of substantial justice under Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Whether the pay loader was a component of the system.Analysis:1. The case involved a delay in preferring the appeal to CEGAT, as required under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned under Section 129A(5) based on substantial justice. The Court considered the Apex Court's stance on 'sufficient cause' in G. Ramegowda v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, emphasizing the need for a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Court found no deliberate inaction or gross negligence on the Petitioner's part and held that the delay should be condoned. Consequently, the Court set aside the CEGAT's order, condoned the delay, and directed the restored appeal to be decided within six months.2. The issue of substantial justice under Section 129A(5) was crucial in this case. The Court noted that the Petitioner had raised arguments on merits that needed consideration, despite the delay in filing the appeal. Referring to the Apex Court's view on condonation of delays, the Court found that the Petitioner had an arguable case that warranted examination by CEGAT. Therefore, the Court held that substantial justice required the delay to be condoned, setting aside the CEGAT's dismissal and restoring the appeal for further consideration.3. Another significant issue was whether the pay loader was a component of the system in question. The Petitioner contended that the pay loader was integral to the system, contrary to the Authority's ruling. The Court allowed the Petitioner to raise this argument by amending the appeal memo before CEGAT, ensuring that all relevant submissions were considered during the appeal process. This decision aimed to address any potential oversight in the earlier proceedings and provide a fair opportunity for the Petitioner to present its case effectively.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the Court's considerations regarding the delay in filing the appeal, the application of substantial justice principles, and the opportunity for the Petitioner to assert its position on the status of the pay loader within the system under dispute.