2025 (8) TMI 109 - HC - Customs

Delay in Filing Appeal Beyond 60 Days Allowed Under Exceptional Circumstances Without Separate Application

The HC allowed condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the 60-day limitation period, accepting the petitioner's explanation of the advocate's ill ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal on the grounds that it was filed after the 60-day limitation period - no sufficient cause was demonstrated - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Order-in-Original was communicated to the Petitioner on 29 December 2022. After excluding this date, the appeal filed on 29 March 2023 could be said to have been filed on the 90th day, i.e. within the delay condonable period of 30 days from the expiry of the first 60 days. The Petitioner should have filed a formal application for condonation of delay showing sufficient cause. However, the Petitioner has explained in the petition that his Advocate was not keeping good health and, therefore, had instructed the junior advocate to file the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The junior advocate failed to file the application for condonation of delay. Paragraph 18 of the petition also states that no correspondence or notice was sent to the Petitioner about the defective filing due to the non-filing of the application for condonation of delay. Thus, it is not correct to say that even in this petition, there was no explanation offered for the 30-day delay in filing the appeal. Such an explanation should have been offered before the Appellate Authority. However, the Petitioner has explained the circumstances in which no such application was filed before the Appellate Authority. There is no reason to doubt the statement about the ill-health of the Petitioner’s Advocate or that the matter was entrusted to a junior lawyer to file the appeal. The Petitioner has gained nothing by not filing the formal application after having entrusted the case papers to his advocate. It is recorded that this order has been made in exceptional circumstances. Normally, even after setting aside the order, Petitioner is granted an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay and then directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the same. However, in this case, considering that the delay was 30 days and the explanation offered was sufficient, this order is made to expedite the proceedings and avoid duplication. Petition disposed off. ISSUES: Whether an appeal filed beyond the primary limitation period of 60 days but within the additional condonable period of 30 days under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be entertained without a formal application for condonation of delay.Whether the explanation of the delay due to the ill-health of the advocate and subsequent procedural lapses constitutes 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay in filing the appeal.Whether the Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone delay and set aside the impugned order dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds.The appropriate conditions or costs that may be imposed when condoning delay in such appeals. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The appeal filed on the 90th day, i.e., within the 30-day condonable period under the proviso to Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, is eligible for consideration despite the absence of a formal condonation application, provided sufficient cause is shown.The explanation that the Petitioner's Advocate was unwell and the matter was entrusted to a junior advocate who failed to file the condonation application constitutes 'sufficient cause' and is accepted as a valid reason for the delay.The Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds, emphasizing that 'some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned may always be present' but does not warrant nonsuiting if there is no mala fide or undue advantage.As a condition for condonation, the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards charitable contributions to specified hospitals within a stipulated time, failing which the petition would stand dismissed with costs. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates appeals within 60 days but allows a discretionary condonation of delay up to 30 days upon showing 'sufficient cause.'The Court relied on the principle established in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy that minor procedural lapses or delays, absent mala fide or undue advantage, should be construed liberally to secure substantial justice.The Court recognized the exceptional circumstances of the advocate's ill-health and the absence of any prejudice to the Respondents, justifying the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to avoid depriving the Petitioner of a hearing on merits.This approach reflects a doctrinal emphasis on balancing procedural compliance with substantive justice, particularly where the delay is minimal and adequately explained.