Automatic vacation of stay under Customs law applies only when delay in disposal is attributable to the appellant.

Bombay HC read down the second proviso to section 129B(2A) of the Customs Act, holding that automatic vacation of stay after 180 days cannot operate against an appellant who is not responsible for the delay. The court applied the principle that a statutory disposal timeline should not defeat the substantive right of appeal where the tribunal fails to hear the matter within time or the delay is otherwise not attributable to the appellant. On that basis, the stay was not treated as vacated on the facts, and relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second proviso to section 129B(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962 vacates a stay automatically when the appeal is not disposed of within 180 days even though the appellant is not at fault.

Analysis: The provision granting stay must be construed in the light of the tribunal's duty to hear and decide appeals expeditiously, but it cannot be read as penalising an appellant for delay not attributable to him. The court applied the principle that a statutory time-limit for disposal of a stayed appeal should not defeat the substantive right of appeal where the failure to decide within time is due to the tribunal's inability to take up the matter or to circumstances not caused by the appellant. The proviso was read down so that automatic vacation of stay would arise only where the delay is attributable to the appellant's conduct.

Conclusion: The stay could not be treated as vacated on the facts of the case, and the petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A proviso directing automatic vacation of stay on expiry of a fixed period must be construed to operate only where the delay in disposal is attributable to the appellant, and not where the appellant is blameless and the failure lies with the tribunal or the respondent.

---