2010 (4) TMI 430 - HC - Customs

High Court dismisses appeal for delay citing unnecessary actions, emphasizes timely steps

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) Versus SUDHIR SATNALIWALA

The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 7th July, 2006, delayed by ... Appeal – Limitation - This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring appeal against an order dated 7th July, 2006. Delay is about 480 days. The impugned order passed on 7th July, 2006 and the order was communicated not by the concerned department but by the respondent herein through their learned Advocate from a communication dated 18th November, 2006. Inspite of receipt of this communication no step was taken for obtaining certified copy of the order. Held that- It is true that period of limitation is reckoned from the date of passing of the order. Therefore it is immaterial whether the petitioner gets copy of the order or not. Time was spent for unnecessary excise which had nothing to do with effective steps for preferring the appeal. Department found not really keen to prefer appeal and just wants to sit tight over the matter without any ground. Delay of about 480 days not condoned. Issues: Delay in preferring appeal against an order dated 7th July, 2006.The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta dealt with an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 7th July, 2006, which was delayed by approximately 480 days. The Court noted that despite a direction to file an affidavit within a stipulated time, no affidavit was submitted. The Court highlighted that the length of delay is not always a deciding factor, citing previous Supreme Court decisions where longer delays were condoned. The Court observed that the impugned order was communicated by the respondent's advocate on 18th November, 2006, but the petitioner failed to take necessary steps to obtain a certified copy of the order. Various unnecessary actions were taken by the petitioner, such as inquiries and letters, instead of focusing on obtaining the certified copy. The Court criticized these actions as irrelevant and not conducive to the appeal process.The Court expressed its reluctance to dismiss the application, noting that the department appeared to be delaying the appeal without valid reasons. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself. No costs were awarded, and all parties were directed to act on a xerox signed copy of the order. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely and effective steps in the appeal process, highlighting that unnecessary delays and actions can impact the outcome of the case.