TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itor General of India, for respondent No.1; and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes (C.B.I.C.) for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to the order passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.01/2026-Cus., dated 16.01.2026, whereby the petitioner's statutory appeal was dismissed as time-barred and for noncompliance of pre-deposit, and to set aside the said order as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and consequently, to direct responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Basing on the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation vide letter dated 25.07.2023. Thereafter, a personal hearing was also conducted on 01.05.2024, wherein the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in his explanation vide letter dated 25.07.2023 and requested the authorities to take a lenient view in the matter. 5. However, the respondent No.3, i.e., the Office of the Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Customs, R.G.I.A., basing on the facts of the case, passed orders vide Order-in-Original No.03/2024-25, dated 09.05.2024, holding that the petitioner had attempted to take out foreign currency (referred supra) without general or special permissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by respondent No.3 on 06.09.2024 and prayed for condonation of delay by stating that the circumstances were beyond his control. The respondent No.2 went on to hold that Section 128 of the Customs Act provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of communication to him of such decision or order but 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. The respondent No.2 further held that since petitioner had preferred the appeal beyond the prescribed time pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the instant case would not get any advantage under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the reason that the impugned order-in-original passed by respondent No.3 was received by the petitioner on 06.09.2024. However, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.2/ appellate authority beyond the prescribed time period of sixty days and even beyond the condonable period of further thirty days; and thereafter on 09.01.2026, i.e., after a lapse of more than one year and one month, the petitioner filed the above appeal before the respondent No.2/ appellate authority. He further contended that the statute requires the petitioner to explain each day's delay which occurred in the process of filing of the appeal and in the absen....