Customs Tribunal denies appeal condonation due to late filing under Customs Act Section 129A(2).

The Tribunal rejected the Collector of Customs' application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the stipulated period under Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act. Despite arguments regarding the date of receipt of the order, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause or due diligence for the delay. Citing the need for urgency and following precedent emphasizing a liberal approach, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation due to the lack of justification for the delay.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Determination of the date of receipt of the order by the Collector of Customs.
3. Examination of due diligence and sufficient cause for delay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The primary issue in this case is the application by the Collector of Customs for condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the stipulated period of three months under Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act. The appeal was filed on 12-11-1984, whereas the order was received on 28-4-1984, resulting in a delay of 113 days. The Collector argued that the order came to his notice only on 30-9-1984, thus there was no delay from that date.

2. Determination of the Date of Receipt of the Order by the Collector of Customs:
The Collector of Customs contended that the order was not served on him on 28-4-1984 but came to his notice on 30-9-1984. The respondents argued that the delay should be calculated from 28-4-1984, the date mentioned in the C.A. 3 Form. The Tribunal examined the statutory requirement under Section 128A(5) of the Customs Act, which mandates that the appellate order should be sent to the Collector. The Tribunal Coordination Unit (TCU) received the order on 28-4-1984, which was considered as the date of receipt by the Collector.

3. Examination of Due Diligence and Sufficient Cause for Delay:
The Tribunal scrutinized the sequence of events and the handling of the file. The learned JDR for the Department cited various reasons, including the preoccupation of officers and the need for obtaining opinions, to explain the delay. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of urgency or due diligence in processing the appeal. The scrutiny and obtaining of the Deputy Chief Chemist's opinion took over seven weeks, and the preparation of the appeal took another five weeks, indicating a lack of urgency.

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, which emphasized a liberal approach towards condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. However, the Tribunal found that no sufficient cause was demonstrated in this case. The handling of the file was routine and lacked any sense of urgency, leading to the conclusion that the delay was not justified.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was not sufficiently explained and no due diligence was shown by the Revenue. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, and consequently, the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.

---