2025 (8) TMI 179 - HC - Customs

Delay in Filing Appeal Condoned Under Section 129A(5) of Customs Act; Appeal Restored with Costs

The HC condoned the delay in filing the appeal before CESTAT, finding no gross negligence, deliberate inaction, or lack of bona fides by the appellant. ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - no gross negligence on behalf of the Appellant in filing the appeal - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 would show that after the expiry of relevant period prescribed under sub-Section 3, if there is sufficient cause, the filing of the appeal can be permitted. This Court in M/S OVT India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs [2024 (12) TMI 1608 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has discussed the provisions in this regard and has held that if there is reasonably sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay, the matter ought to be heard on merits. Further, the Supreme Court in the judgment M/s J.M. Ramachandra and Sons v. Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal & Anr. [2001 (9) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI] while condoning delay in similar facts and circumstances, inter alia, observed that the Tribunal ought to apply its mind in such matters. In cases where there is no deliberate attempt by the party to delay the matter and there is no case made out for culpable negligence or lack of bona fides, the Courts ought to have a liberal view. The Supreme Court further held that in such cases, the term ‘sufficient cause’ must be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than technical detection by sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay. In the present case, no case for gross negligence, deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides of the Appellant has been made out. The delay in filing the appeal before the CESTAT is condoned, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- as costs to the Respondent Department. The appeal of the Appellant before the CESTAT is restored to its original number - Let the appeal now be adjudicated by CESTAT on merits - List before CESTAT on 10th September, 2025. ISSUES: Whether delay in filing an appeal before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) can be condoned under Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.What constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay in appeals under the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the absence of gross negligence, deliberate delay, or mala fide conduct justifies condonation of delay.The extent to which courts should adopt a justice-oriented and pragmatic approach rather than a technical one in condoning delay.The applicability of precedents and principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding condonation of delay in customs appeals. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The delay of 273 days in filing the appeal before CESTAT was not adequately explained by the Tribunal, and the rejection of the condonation of delay application was set aside.Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 permits filing of an appeal after the prescribed period if there is 'sufficient cause' for the delay, which must be considered with a 'justice oriented approach rather than technical detection.'In the absence of 'gross negligence,' 'deliberate attempt to delay,' or 'lack of bona fides,' the Court held that the delay deserved to be condoned.The Court emphasized that 'the Tribunal ought to apply its mind' and that 'reasons constitute heart beat of every order,' thus mere dismissal without adequate reasoning is inappropriate.The appeal was restored to its original number and directed to be heard on merits, subject to payment of costs to the Respondent Department. RATIONALE: The Court relied on the statutory framework under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, which prescribes a three-month limitation period for appeals but allows condonation of delay on sufficient cause.Precedents from the Supreme Court, including the judgment in M/s J.M. Ramachandra and Sons v. Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, were applied, emphasizing a liberal and pragmatic approach to condonation of delay, especially where no mala fide or dilatory tactics are involved.The Court reiterated the principle that 'substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.'The Court noted that the Tribunal's failure to record adequate reasons for rejecting the condonation application was a significant procedural lapse.The Court imposed costs as a measure to compensate the Respondent Department for the delay, aligning with the Supreme Court's guidance on balancing interests of both parties.