2025 (4) TMI 320 - AT - Customs

Large corporate house fails to get delay condoned for filing appeals due to vague excuses and insufficient explanations

M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar

CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing appeals. The tribunal held that a large corporate house and ... Condonation of delay in filing the appeals - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the appellant is a large corporate house and not a kind of one man industry, taking care of all business operations, these arguments make no sense and are vague and loosely worded. Nowhere is the alleged remote location identified in the miscellaneous application filed before us. Which remote place, from what time to what time was the advocate not available etc., nothing is expressly stated in the condonation of delay petition. It does not behove the appellant to sound so helpless and naïve, being a major Navratna of the Govt., and a pioneer producer of iron and steel goods, besides being regular importers having established legal units and proper verticals to look after such work in the organization, manned by personnel having expertise to look into the said affairs and has been handling the subject matter of coking coal imports on a regular basis. Such kind of half baked excuses do not gel with their prime status. It is further stated in the petition that after nearly four months when the said Advocate returned to base and the petitioner could finally establish contact with their lawyers, the files were not traceable. The appellant had to all over again start the process of collecting and verifying the concerned records, which process took them nearly six months. Even the argument of cyclone Fani does not justify the gross delay, as the appeals have been filed after several months of the cyclone striking the coastline of Orissa. The hon’ble apex court in the case of Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore [1988 (3) TMI 408 - SUPREME COURT] had clearly stated that negligence, gross inaction, lack of bonafides of the party/counsel could be no reasons to expose the other party to a time barred appeal. It is settled law that when applying for COD, the applicant is required to explain each day’s delay by giving a reasonable/plausible explanation, of which none exists in the present case. A person who has not been diligent and slept over the matter and has been quite casual cannot and ought not to be favoured by courts, by exercising discretion in favour of such a person. Conclusion - The condonation of delay is not a mere formality and requires a reasonable explanation for each day's delay. The delay cannot be condoned due to insufficient explanations. The applications filed by the appellant for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered was whether the delay in filing the appeals by the appellant, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), could be condoned. This involved examining the reasons provided for the delay and determining if they constituted sufficient cause under the relevant legal framework. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the appeals could be entertained despite being filed beyond the statutory period.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant legal framework and precedents: The appeals were subject to the provisions of the Customs Act, particularly sections 28, 28AA, and 28AB, which deal with the determination and payment of customs duty and interest. The Tribunal also considered legal precedents regarding the condonation of delay, including decisions from higher courts that emphasize the need for a reasonable explanation for each day's delay.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal scrutinized the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeals. The appellant cited coordination issues, the unavailability of their lawyer, the impact of cyclone 'Fani', manpower crises, and frequent employee transfers as causes for the delay. The Tribunal found these reasons to be routine excuses that did not justify the significant delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant, being a large public sector enterprise, should have had the resources and organizational capability to manage legal matters more efficiently.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide specific details about the alleged remote location of the lawyer or the exact period of unavailability. The explanations offered were deemed vague and insufficient. The Tribunal also observed that the appellant's lack of urgency and seriousness in addressing the appeals reflected a lack of professionalism.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the established legal principle that each day's delay must be explained with a reasonable and plausible cause. The appellant's explanations were found lacking in this regard. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents where similar excuses were rejected as insufficient grounds for condonation of delay.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the appellant's arguments but found them unpersuasive. It noted that the appellant's status as a major public sector organization did not exempt it from adhering to statutory timelines. The Tribunal also highlighted that the relatively small amount of differential duty involved might have contributed to the appellant's complacency.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's reasons for the delay did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. The appellant's negligence and lack of diligence were significant factors in the decision to dismiss the condonation petitions.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The reasons furnished for delayed filing of appeal are simply amusing and out of regular tales cooked up.'Core principles established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that condonation of delay is not a mere formality and requires a reasonable explanation for each day's delay. It emphasized that negligence, gross inaction, and lack of bona fides are not acceptable reasons for condonation.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the necessity of providing concrete and plausible reasons for any delay in legal proceedings.