2017 (11) TMI 622

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al, for short) rejecting his application for condonation of delay of 248 days in filing the appeal. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent-Revenue, we frame the following substantial question of law and have heard arguments as a very short issue arises for consideration:- "Whether the tribunal was justified and correct in law in rejecting application No. C/COD/51815/2016-CU(DB) and refusing to condone delay of 248 days?" 3. The appellant had imported a consignment of glass sets and glass chatons vide bill of entry No. 2730075 dated 28th September, 2015. The consignment was examined by officers of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi and it is alleged that certain discrepancies in the quantum of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of the Tribunal dated 15th March, 2017 notices the respective contentions and has refused to condone the delay recording that the appellant had made an application for furnishing of RUDs on 7th December, 2016, just a few days before the appeal was preferred. In this light, it has been held that the long delay of 248 days has not been explained and there was no reason and justification to condone the same. 8. We have noted the respective contentions of the appellant and the respondent. As per the stand of the respondents, the appellant had waived the show cause notice and hence there was no need and requirement for the appellant to follow the procedure of giving an opportunity to the respondents to file a reply and contest the proceedi....