TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 30th June, 2023 in defect Diary Appeal No. 50672/2023 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT'). Vide the said impugned order, CESTAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant on the ground of delay. 3. A brief background of the present case is that the Appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of import and trade of different varieties of fabric from China and Hong Kong. For the same, the Appellant has entered into various agreements with foreign suppliers. In 2014-2015 post arrival of the goods of the Appellant, the Respondent authority demanded that the Appellant pay the duty in terms of the bills of entry. Thereafter, the Appellant sent several letters dated 25th March,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant portion of the impugned order is extracted hereunder: "The advocate for the appellant causing appearance submits that there is delay of 273 days as the order was received on 7 April 2022 and the appeal was filed on 5 April 2023. The reason given is that the advocate appointed by the appellant kept him in dark by assuring that the said appeal had been filed by him. After no reply from the said Advocate, the appellant then appointed the current Advocate to file the present appeal. The learned Authorized Representative on the other hand submits that party is in а habit in indulging in dilatory tactics and previously also at the stage of adjudication it had filed the reply after delay of 6 to 7 уеаrs. Considered, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs Act, 1962 would show that after the expiry of relevant period prescribed under sub-Section 3, if there is sufficient cause, the filing of the appeal can be permitted. Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 is extracted hereunder for a ready reference: "The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 9. This Court vide order dated 11th December, 2024 in CUSAA 5/2024 titled, M/S OVT India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs has discussed the provisions in this regard and has held that if ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A of the notice under section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962. (iv). The importer is held liable to pay interest under section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962 from the date of presentation of bill of entry as per annexure A, till the date of actual payment. (v). The imported goods are not held liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. (vi). No penalty is levied under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (vii). A penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Tour lakh only) is levied under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962." 5. It is seen that the adjudicating authority's order deals with classification of the goods and an additional duty of approximately Rs. 1.59 crores has been directed to be paid including interest and pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put-forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quit a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guidelines that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the Court shall compensate the opposite party for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. Judiciary is not respected on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable off removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. These views were highlighted by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(1) AIR SCW 1672. 18. We find that there is no finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was any deliberate attempt in delaying the matter or that there was culpable negligence or there was lack of bona fides. In fact, except barely saying that there was no justifiable delay, reasons f....