Appeal dismissed due to delay, payment in instalments allowed for financial hardship

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to an unjustifiable delay in filing. However, it upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s decision to allow payment of penalties in instalments, citing the discretion to consider extreme financial hardship. The request to file separate appeals for other respondents was denied to avoid prolonging the issue. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in granting instalment payment facilities, concluding that the Collector (Appeals) acted within valid grounds. The appeal was ultimately dismissed on both procedural and substantive grounds, affirming the decision to grant payment in instalments.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal, power of Collector (Appeals) to grant payment in instalments of penalties, jurisdiction of appellate authority.

Analysis:
The Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay filed an application for condonation of delay in an appeal involving nine respondents. The department filed only one appeal instead of separate appeals for each respondent, which was considered a defective appeal. The department sought permission to file separate appeals for the other respondents. The delay of 82 days in filing the appeal was attributed to administrative and procedural processes. The main legal issue was whether the appellate authority could exercise executive discretion in granting payment of penalties in instalments. The penalties were imposed on the respondents for possession of foreign marked silver. The Collector (Appeals) reduced the penalties due to extreme financial hardship of the respondents and allowed payment in instalments, subject to timely payment.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was not justifiable, as superior officers had raised queries regarding the Collector (Appeals) power to order payment in instalments back in September 1990. The delay until March 1991 was considered unreasonable, leading to the rejection of the appeal as time-barred. However, the Tribunal also examined the merits of the case. It was established that the Collector (Appeals) had the discretion to consider extreme financial hardship of appellants and grant instalment payment facilities. The Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the Collector (Appeals) decision to allow payment in instalments, given the financial condition of the respondents. The power to grant instalments was considered valid, especially in cases involving penalties rather than revenue/duty recovery. The Tribunal concluded that the Collector (Appeals) had not acted capriciously or without valid grounds in granting the instalment payment facility.

In the absence of any prohibition and considering the inherent power of the Collector (Appeals), the Tribunal upheld the decision to allow payment in instalments. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit. The request to file separate appeals for other respondents was also denied to avoid prolonging the issue. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was to be dismissed both on procedural and substantive grounds, ultimately upholding the decision of the Collector (Appeals) to grant payment of penalties in instalments.

---