TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Container Depot for export of dyed and printed fabrics made out of 100% polyester filament yarn/textured yarn by misdeclaring the value by over invoicing in order to get higher benefits under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) in contravention of Section 14(1) and Section 60 of the Customs Act, 1962. After affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, ICD, Tirupur by order dated 21-6-2006 re-determined the value of the exported goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 17,50,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 35,00,000/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore which was dismissed due to non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration is as to whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first respondent Tribunal should be condoned and whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent by relying upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has to prefer only a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Further it is contended that the Tribunal has held that the reasons given by the petitioner are not satisfactory and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the order. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 26-8-2008, and therefore it was contended that the appeal was within time. The petitioner appears to have produced the copy of the gift deed in respect of the office building to prove that he was not in occupation of the premises on the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original on 28-5-2008. The copy of the gift deed has also been filed in the typed set of papers at page no. 162. Admittedly, there is no material on record to establish that the averment made by the petitioner is either false or incorrect. The order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal is an order refusing to condone the delay, passed on an miscellaneous application and not a final order on merits of the petitioner's claim. Therefore, this Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court. 10. The reason for such a different stance is thus : The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. 11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court, must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been imposed on the petitioner. It is not the case of the second respondent that the delay is uncondonable, though it may be not for a very long period. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. 9. Thus considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met only if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the Tribunal is directed to consider the application for pre-deposit at the first instance and thereafter, the appeal on merits. It is seen that notice was ordered in the writ petition on 26-2-2009 and interim stay was granted and the enti....