Limitation for appeal filing by post depends on proof of dispatch; absent evidence, delay was not condoned and the appeal was time-barred.

Limitation for filing an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 turned on the date of actual receipt in the Registry, and a delayed filing could be admitted only on sufficient cause. The majority held that where filing was by post, Rule 6(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 required proof of dispatch, and the absence of postal receipt or comparable evidence meant the asserted filing date was not established. On that basis, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was treated as time-barred. A separate opinion considered the contemporaneous documents and affidavits sufficient to show diligence and support condonation, but it did not prevail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned and the appeal treated as within limitation.

Analysis: The appeal was required to be presented within the prescribed limitation period under the Customs Act, 1962, as applicable, and a delayed filing could be admitted only on sufficient cause being shown. The majority found that the decisive date for filing was the date of actual receipt in the Registry, and that the mode of filing by post was governed by Rule 6(2) of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. In the absence of postal receipt or comparable proof of dispatch on the asserted date, the oral and circumstantial material was held insufficient to establish timely presentation. The dissenting view treated the contemporaneous letter, authorisation, draft, stamps, and affidavits as sufficient to show diligence and to justify condonation.

Conclusion: By majority, the delay was not condoned on the reasoning adopted by the majority, and the appeal was held time-barred. The separate opinion favoured condonation, but it did not prevail.

---