TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms lower in rank than the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days from the date of communication to him of such order. The proviso, however, stipulates 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. 3. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the order dated May 16, 2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner was served upon the appellant on May 22, 2024. The appeal was, however, filed on August 22, 2024. It was, therefore, filed beyond two days after the expiry of initial period of 60 days and the extended period of 30 days contemplated under section 128(1) of the Customs Act and this fact of filing after two days has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The appellant had filed an application for condonation of delay in terms of the proviso to section 128(1) of the Customs Act. The relevant paragraphs of the application are reproduced below "2. That the Applicant herei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant documents to the advocate. The advocate perused all the relevant documents and advised us to file an appeal challenging the impugned order before Commissioner (Appeal). Both the Applicant and advocate took some time to agree upon the commercials. The advocate then drafted the appeal and shared the draft appeal to the Applicant for verification and confirmation. Finally, the draft was finalised and filed before Your Honour on 22.8.2024. The Hon'ble Commissioner may appreciate that the delay in filing appeal does not occur because of any negligence on the part of the Applicant. The said delay is not deliberate or intentional or wanton. 5. It may kindly be appreciated that the refusal to condone delay will not only legitimize and arbitrary action of the Ld. Additional Commissioner but also result in rejection of the Applicant's meritorious appeal on the very threshold. It is respectfully submitted that the condonation of delay for filing the present appeal would not cause any undue hardship to the Ld, Additional Commissioner. The Applicant submits that irreparable harm and prejudice will be caused to Applicant in the event the relief as prayed for is not granted."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard on merits in the interest of justice. 11. I'm executing this affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay being filed by the Applicant." (emphasis supplied) 6. A prescription slip issued by Nanavati Hospital was enclosed as Annexure-2 of the affidavit. A perusal of the said prescription slip shows that it does not mention the date. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the explanation offered by the appellant and in view of the provisions of rule 3 of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 observed as follows "10. ...... Moreover, I find that Statutes cited above, contain detailed provsions governing procedural aspects, including specific timelines for filing appeals, and prescribed time limit for condonation of delay. If appeals arc not filed within statutory prescribed limitation and certainly, such delay, cannot be condoned by statutory authorities. As per the Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appeal has to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the order and in terms of the 1st proviso, further 30 days time can be allowed by the appellate authority to file the appeal. In this case, both the appeals have been fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals) and submitted that the appeals should be dismissed. Learned authorized representative pointed out that it is not the case of the appellant that the other partner of the firm was not in India during the relevant period and even otherwise, the affidavit that was filed was very vague and did not give particulars. Learned authorized representative also pointed out that even the prescription of the doctor does not mention the date. 10. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 11. It is not in dispute that the order dated May 16, 2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, against which appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), were sent by speed-post to both the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the speed-post was received in the office of the appellant on May 22, 2024 but both the appeals were filed after the expiry of normal period of 60 days and the extended period of 30 days. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the period from May 18, 2024 to June 11, 2024, during which time one partner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Customs Act. In this case, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) after expiry of the normal period of 60 days and the extended period of 30 days. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply and if the delay was to be condoned in such a case, the provision providing for limitation would become otiose. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the High Court were, therefore, justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of the extended period of 30 days. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below: "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') can be availed for condonation of delay. ***** However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal wit....