1987 (3) TMI 219 - AT - Customs

Customs Collector's Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay; Condonation Rejected

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY Versus PARKAR CORPORATION

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY Versus PARKAR CORPORATION - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 300 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal.2. Explanation of delay and sufficiency of cause.3. Governmental procedural delays versus private delays.4. Judicial precedents on condonation of delay.Detailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing an Appeal:The appellant, Collector of Customs, Bombay, sought condonation of a 16-day delay in presenting the appeal to the Tribunal. The limitation period for filing an appeal is three months from the date of communication of the order, which in this case expired on 16-10-1985. The appeal was received by the Tribunal on 1-11-1985, thus exceeding the limitation period by 16 days.2. Explanation of Delay and Sufficiency of Cause:The appellant provided a detailed time chart and an affidavit sworn by an Assistant Collector of Customs, explaining the procedural steps and delays involved. Key points included the approval of the appeal on 16-10-1985, dispatch of appeal papers on 28-10-1985, and the transitional arrangements cited as reasons for the delay. The appellant argued that the delay was beyond their control and should be condoned.During the hearing, the appellant's representative cited the Supreme Court decision in Ramlal & Others v. Rewa Coalfields (1962 S.C. 361), emphasizing that the question of diligence during the relevant period is not pertinent for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The argument was that each day's delay had been properly explained, and the institutional nature of government decisions warranted some latitude.3. Governmental Procedural Delays Versus Private Delays:The respondent's counsel argued against the condonation, stating that the appellant had not been vigilant and had only acted at the last moment. The counsel cited two precedents: Government of Andhra Pradesh & Another v. Bactchala Balaiah (AIR 1985 AP 52) and State of Bihar v. Dhajadhari Rai (AIR 1985 Patna 187), where delays due to inter-departmental procedures were not considered sufficient cause for condonation.The Tribunal observed that the file moved mechanically without urgency, and holidays cited did not justify the delay. It was noted that urgent work could have been done even on holidays, and the office machine's malfunction was not a sufficient excuse since the work could have been outsourced earlier.4. Judicial Precedents on Condonation of Delay:The appellant's representative relied on the Karnataka High Court decision in Union of India & Another v. Suresh N. Shetty (1986 (25) E.L.T. 657), which argued for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for government delays. However, the Tribunal noted that the decision did not consider the Supreme Court's ruling in State of West Bengal v. Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 S.C. 749), which emphasized that the law applies equally to government and private parties unless specified otherwise.The Tribunal found that the appellant's case did not involve the same level of collective decision-making as in the Karnataka case. The decision to file the appeal was solely the Collector's, and the delay in implementation after approval was deemed avoidable.Conclusion:The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, citing insufficient cause and lack of urgency in the appellant's actions. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.