TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted goods from Korea through Chennai Customs Airport, declaring the goods as Herbal Classic Menthol, original herbal product (charcoal filter) (tobacco free, nicotine free), sticks made of tea leaves and classified it under Customs Tariff Heading 30049011(Chapter 30). The bill of entry dated 22.05.2023, declared the assessable value as Rs. 8,99, 640/- and the bill of entry dated 25/05/2023 declared the accessible value as Rs. 17,99,280/-. According to the writ petitioner, the goods imported are tobacco free and nicotine free products. Hence, it has been rightly classified under the tariff 30049011. Whereas, the Assessing Officer, after obtaining the rest of the report confirming the samples, do not contain any tobacco or nicotine product ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, but not a sufficient cause falling under the criteria listed as acceptable cause. 5.The impugned order of the CESTAT has postulated the following criteria as acceptable criteria for condoning delay:- "(i) It must be a cause which was beyond the control of the party invoking it. ii) The party must not be guilty of negligence. (iii) Due diligence and care must be shown to have been taken. (iv) It should not be that the party kept sleeping over their rights for long and woke up when they discovered some judgment of change in law to their advantage." 6.The Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that even according to the CESTAT, the criteria postulated by it, is not exhaustive, but only il....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed the appeal before the Tribunal explaining the reasonable cause for delay, which is adequate and sufficient. The impugned order of the Tribunal denying right to contest the matter on merits, despite proper explanation for delay, is liable to be set aside and the order to condone the delay and dispose the appeal on merit, has to be passed. 8.The Respondents in the counter affidavit has contented that, the present writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in-limine. The petitioner, without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, expressly provided under Section 130 of the Customs Act,1962 which is effective and efficacious, had resorted to invoke the writ jurisdiction, which can be invoked only in case of absence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en there is remedy of statutory appeal available under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The second objection is that the reason for delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained and the explanation given by the writ petitioner is not a satisfactory cause, but mere explanation bereft of reasonable cause. 11.In respect of the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, the Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner relies on the judgment of this court rendered in Thiruchitrambalam Projects Limited - vs - CESTAT, Chennai [Reported in 2016 (43) S.T.R. 531 (Mad)], wherein a Division Bench of this Court considering the judgment of another Division Bench rendered in Metal Weld Electrodes v. CESTAT, Chennai reported....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the aforesaid principle is subject to one exception, namely, where there is a complete lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal to take action or there has been a violation of rules of natural justice or where the tribunal acted under a provision of law which is declared ultra vires. In such cases, notwithstanding the existence of such a tribunal, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction to grant relief." 15. In the same judgment at paragraph No.33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the Constitution Bench decision rendered in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes reported i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der consideration, the facts do not fall under any of exceptions to entertain the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal by the Tribunal. Even assuming, failure to avail the alternate statutory remedy under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a curable defect, limitation prescribed under the fiscal law cannot be condoned in casual manner. Condonation of delay is a pure question of fact. 18. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that after the order of the appellate authority dated 10.07.2024, the writ petitioner believed that the writ petition would give a quietus to the issue. Hence, filed W.P.No.20422 of 2024. Later, on appropriate legal advice, the statutory appeal filed. The delay, therefore, is a bonafi....