1991 (10) TMI 136 - AT - Customs

Tribunal dismisses appeal due to substantial delay in filing - emphasizes importance of diligence & compliance

GOPI KRISHNA AGARWAL Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing appeals related to an order of remand by the Collector of Customs. Despite the ... Appeal - Condonation of delay Issues:Delay in filing appeals, Order of remand by Collector of Customs, High Court's opinion on alternative remedies, Condonation of delay application, Lack of sufficient cause for delay.Analysis:The judgment deals with the issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals arising from an order of remand by the Collector of Customs. The applicants sought condonation of delay in filing the appeals, which were based on the same order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The order set aside the original orders and remanded the matters for de novo consideration. The applicants had previously filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad, which was rejected. The High Court suggested two alternatives: moving an application for recalling the order before the appellate authority or filing an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants, in their condonation application, claimed to have moved the Collector (Appeals) for recalling the order based on the High Court's opinion. However, the High Court had not directed them to do so. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was substantial, 11 months and 28 days, with no satisfactory reasons provided by the applicants. The Tribunal found serious laches on the part of the applicants and no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In this case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of diligence in pursuing available remedies against impugned orders. The applicants failed to provide valid reasons for the significant delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal cited a previous case where a similar application for condonation of delay was not accepted due to insufficient reasons. Despite the applicants' reference to a High Court order in another case, the Tribunal found no justification for condoning the delay in the present matter. The lack of diligence and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay led to the rejection of the condonation application and the dismissal of the appeal.Overall, the judgment underscores the necessity of promptly pursuing legal remedies and providing valid reasons for any delays in filing appeals. The Tribunal's decision to reject the condonation application and dismiss the appeal highlights the importance of diligence and compliance with procedural requirements in legal matters.