AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Entry No.2932324 and 2932320 both dated 21st August, 2017 declaring the goods imported by him to be "polyester knitted fabric of different colour and weight" declaring the value thereof as Rs.3698473.01 and Rs.4202865.91 respectively. However, on the basis of specific intelligence with regard to mis-declaration of value, quantity and description of goods imported by the appellant, both the consignments of appellant were examined on 28.08.2017 by officers of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, New Delhi. The goods were found to be undervalued as well as mis-declared and accordingly, were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. 2. The proprietor of appellant vide his statement dated 26th September, 2017 had agreed to the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. 3. I have heard Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ishwar Charan, ld. Authorized Representative for the Department. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has mentioned that he has a meritorious case which has been thrown to threshold on the technical ground of time bar. Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the fact that the appeal was filed during the period for which Commissioner (Appeals) was competent to condone the delay. It is further submitted that though Order-in-Original was passed on 26.10.2017 but the order of granting final permission to clear the goods was passed on 14.11.2017. It is the later date which is emphasized to be relevant for calculating the period of limitation (60 days + 30 days). Seen f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....promptly in furtherance of desire of appellant itself to not to issue a SCN but to decide the case on merits. The said desire was expressed voluntarily after admitting the allegations of undervaluation and mis-declaration as were noticed by the officers of Customs (Preventive). Not only this, the assessed amount of differential duty was voluntarily paid by the appellant acknowledging the said short-coming. However, since the impugned appeal has been filed against the order passed based on the grounds of limitation much of the merits of the case are opined to not to be discussed in the present order. But it becomes clear that appellant has wrongly mentioned his case to be meritorious. 7. No doubt the appeal was filed within the period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been provided by the legislature in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression "sufficient cause" is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in the meaningful manner which sub-serves the end of justice and that the doctrine must be applied in a rational commonsense pragmatic manner. But in all those decisions, it has been simultaneously appreciated that the authorities (judicial or quasi-judicial) who have the statutory discretion to condone the delay in seeking remedy before them, are duty bound to strictly observe that condonation of delay is not sought as a resort to the dilatory tactics by the litigant. The explanation in the name of '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to state any straight - jacket formula which can uniformly be applied to all cases without reference to peculiar facts and circumstances of a given case. Hon'ble Supreme Court further elaborated that it must be kept in mind that whenever a law is enacted by the legislature, it is intended to be enforced in its proper perspective. It is an equally settled principle of law that the provisions of a statute, including every word, have to be given full effect, keeping the legislative intent in mind in order to ensure that the projected object is achieved. In other words, no provisions can be treated to have been enacted purposelessly. Furthermore, it is also a well settled canon of interpretative jurisprudence that the Court should not give such....