Section 28KA Customs Act limits appeal extension to maximum 90 days, 856-day delay cannot be condoned

The Bombay HC dismissed an application seeking condonation of 856 days delay in filing an appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that Section 28KA permits only a maximum 30-day extension beyond the initial 60-day period, totaling 90 days maximum. Following Delhi HC precedent, appeals filed beyond 90 days cannot be entertained as the delay cannot be condoned. The court found the reasons provided - classification complexity, revenue implications, and legal analysis - insufficient to constitute sufficient cause for such inordinate delay. The application was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Delay condonation for challenging Advance Ruling Authority's order under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application seeking condonation of an 856-day delay to challenge an order by the Advance Ruling Authority. The applicant argued that the delay was due to complex classification and revenue implications, offering to pay costs. However, the court noted that the appeal should have been filed under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, not Section 130, as contended by the applicant. While the court could condone delays under Section 130 without limit, Section 28KA limited the extension to 30 days.

The court referenced a Delhi High Court case where it was held that appeals filed beyond 90 days from the communication of the order cannot be entertained. In this case, the order date was 31 October 2022, with no communication date specified. The court emphasized that Section 28KA allows a 60-day window for filing an appeal, extendable by 30 days only under sufficient cause. The court reiterated that the right to appeal is statutory and subject to limitations set by the law.

Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that inordinate delays frustrate the purpose of advance rulings. The court dismissed the application due to the 856-day delay, finding insufficient cause beyond the complexity of classification and revenue implications. The court highlighted the need for a better explanation for such delays, as seen in a Supreme Court case distinguishing between inordinate delays and shorter ones.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the interim application without costs, leading to the dismissal of the accompanying appeal. No costs were awarded, emphasizing the importance of timely appeals and justifications for delay in legal proceedings.

---