2025 (8) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ins to the order dated 19/20 August 2024, by which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on the grounds that it was filed after the 60-day limitation period. The Commissioner also noted that although the appeal was lodged within the condonable period of 30 days, no explanation was provided, and no sufficient cause was demonstrated. 4. Mr. Dingankar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, explained that the Advocate who appeared for the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority was unwell and, therefore, missed filing the application for condonation of delay. However, Mr. Dingankar submitted that there was sufficient cause for this unintentional omission on the part of the Petitioner's Advocate, and the Pe....

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 Customs or Commissioner of Customs may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order. The proviso to Section 128(1), however, provides that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days subject to "sufficient cause" being shown. 10. Thus, the primary rule is the presentation of an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the impugned order. However, the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone a delay of up to 30 days. 11. In the present case, the Ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, considering these exceptional circumstances coupled with the fact that the Petitioner has offered to pay costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-, we propose to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction and condone this delay for instituting the appeal before the Appellate Authority. In such cases, as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 7 SCC 123, some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned may always be present. However, that by itself is not a sufficient ground to nonsuit the Petitioner or deprive the Petitioner of an opportunity of hearing on the merits of the matter. If, the lapse does not relate to any mala fides and Petitioner has not obtained any undue advantage of the situation, the....