2019 (6) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "When we found that there is hardly any explanation for delay of 582 days in preferring appeal, the learned Counsel for the applicant seeks time to file additional affidavit. We grant time of two weeks from today to file additional affidavit. Place the Notice of Motion on 25th April, 2019." 3. Pursuant to the above, the applicant has filed additional affidavit dated 24th April, 2019 of the Deputy Commissioner of Custom seeking to explain the delay in filing the accompanying appeal. The additional affidavit as filed, states that the order dated 11th January, 2017 of the Tribunal set aside the suspension of the Custom Broker License of the respondent. The order was received on 17th January, 2017. The Deputy Commissioner sought direction....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) ELT 400 (Bom.) (ii) Proflex Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2017 (347) ELT 420 (Guj.) (iii) Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex. Vs. Sharma Fabricators and Erectors Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (16) GSTL 379 (All.) (iv) Commissioner of Central Tax & C. Ex. Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, 2018 (362) ELT 942 (Bom.) (v) Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex. Vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd. 2009 (236) ELT 417. (vi) Principal Commissioner Vs. Essar Oil Ltd. 2017 (347) ELT 432. (vii) The Commissioner of Customs Vs. Fugro Survey (Middle East) Ltd. (NMA No. 743 of 2018 in Customs Appeal (L) No. 52 of 2018, dated 11th April, 2019) 5. In particular, he placed emphasis upon the decision of this Court in Fugro Surve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat long delays have been condoned in earlier cases and, therefore, notwithstanding the absence of appropriate explanation for the delay, the same has to be condoned. In fact, the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by the applicant was a decision which was rendered on 19th April, 2018 while the present appeal has been filed from an order which was dismissed on 11th January, 2017. It is to be noted that it was after the aforesaid decision that 19th April, 2018 the applicant appointed an advocate on 23rd July, 2018 so as to prosecute an appeal from the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 11th January, 2017. It appears that the appeal has been filed only in view of the decision of this Cour....