TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for Respondent No. 18 & 28 Shri Arpit Bhargava, CA & Ms. Radhika Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No. 15,21,23,25 & 33 Ms. Reena Khair and Ms. Rita Jha, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 39 & 40 ORDER Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Limited [the Appellant] filed the appeal in the Registry on 22 November, 2018 to assail the Final Findings dated 25 January, 2018 of the Designated Authority. 2. The appeal before the Tribunal has to be filed within ninety days of the date of order under appeal as provided for in Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [the Act]. Though the period of 90 days expired much earlier than the filing of the appeal on 22 November, 2018, but the appeal was not accompanied by any application for condoning the delay in f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egard to maintainability of writ petition against negative recommendation of the Designated Authority and reserved the judgment. e. Applicant was advised to await the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. f. On 20.09.2018, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi pronounced its Judgment in the matter of Jindal Polyfilm Ltd. vs Designated Authority wherein, it has held that statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Customs and Tariff Act is maintainable against the Designated Authority's recommendation not to impose anti-dumping duty/negative recommendation. g. Thereafter, appellant again approached the legal counsel in first week of October, 2018, the appellant was told that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has already held that appeal is maintainab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court granted three weeks time to the petitioner to file appeal. Appellant was also advised to file appeal within 3 weeks. The applicant on 22.11.2018 immediately filed the present appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the same impugned Final Finding. j. It is humbly submitted that, if the delay of 211 days is not condoned by this Hon'ble Tribunal, it would result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice would be defeated. k. It is well established that where the delay is only a few days, as in this case, the Courts will not take a narrow and pedantic view in condoning delay especially where good cause is shown as in this case." 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant was also advised to file an appeal within three weeks. Accordingly, the present appeal was filed on 22 November, 2018 within the time granted by the Bombay High Court in M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. The submission, therefore, is that the delay should be condoned. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents have objected to the application and submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not bonafide as the Appellant deliberately kept quiet for a substantial period of time and it is only when the Bombay High Court granted liberty to the Petitioner therein, M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co., to file an appeal before the Tribunal within three weeks, that the Appellant woke up and filed this appeal in the Tribunal. It has, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the remedy. There was no reason for the Appellant to await the decision of a Writ Petition filed by some other party and that too not against the determination made by the Designated Authority on 25 January, 2018. If the Appellant was really aggrieved by the negative determination by the Designated Authority, it could have also filed a Writ petition before appropriate High Court. 8. It is also sought to be contended that one of the constituent domestic industry, feeling aggrieved by the negative determination by the Designated Authority, filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court directly without availing the remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal and it is only when the Bombay High Court permitted the said Petitioner to file a....