Limitation under Customs appeals runs from communication of the original order; a corrigendum does not restart time or excuse delay.

Under the Customs Act, the limitation period for filing an appeal runs from communication of the original adjudication order, not from receipt of a later corrigendum that merely substitutes the preamble or corrects the appellate forum. A corrigendum does not create a fresh starting point for limitation unless it alters the adjudication order itself. For condonation of delay, sufficient cause must be shown for the entire period of delay, supported by record; unsupported illness claims and advice obtained after limitation expires are inadequate. The delay was therefore not capable of being condoned on the material described.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the limitation period for filing the appeal under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was to be computed from the date of communication of the original order or from the date of receipt of the corrigendum; (ii) Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the limitation period for filing the appeal under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was to be computed from the date of communication of the original order or from the date of receipt of the corrigendum.

Analysis: The statutory period runs from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated. The corrigendum only substituted the preamble and did not amend the adjudication order itself or extend the period of limitation. A wrong indication of the appellate forum in the preamble could not give rise to a fresh starting point for limitation where the original order had already been communicated.

Conclusion: The limitation period had to be computed from the date of communication of the original order, not from the date of the corrigendum.

Issue (ii): Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was found unsatisfactory. The asserted illness of the officer handling the matter was unsupported by affidavit or record, and the alleged legal advice was obtained after expiry of limitation. Sufficient cause must cover the entire period of delay, and a litigant must explain the delay up to the date of filing.

Conclusion: No sufficient cause was proved and the delay was not liable to be condoned.

Final Conclusion: The request for condonation failed, and the appeal could not be entertained as filed beyond time.

Ratio Decidendi: For an appeal governed by a statutory limitation period, only a communication that affects the adjudication order itself can alter the starting point of limitation, and condonation requires a full, day-by-day explanation showing sufficient cause throughout the period of delay.

---