2003 (11) TMI 523 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, Maintainability of appeal by a third party, Condonation of delay, Sufficiency of cause for delay.

Delay in filing appeals:
The appellants filed two appeals accompanied by applications to condone the delay in filing them. The appellants received the Commissioner's order on 13-1-2001 and should have filed the appeal within 90 days, as per Section 129D of the Customs Act. However, there was a delay of 175 days in filing the appeals. The appellants cited reasons such as having a business establishment in Malaysia, the appellant's stay in Malaysia due to medical treatment for herpes zoster, and the subsequent submission of relevant documents upon returning to India for filing the appeal. The medical certificate from a doctor in Malaysia supported the appellant's health condition during the relevant period.

Maintainability of appeal by a third party:
The Revenue contended that the appeal was not maintainable as it was adjudicated in the name of a specific entity, and the appellant, being a proprietary concern, should have been represented by the proprietor. The Revenue argued that since no penalty was imposed on the appellant individually, the appeal filed by a third party on behalf of the proprietary concern was not legally valid. The Revenue emphasized that the impugned order specified penalties and liabilities applicable to the proprietary concern, making the proprietor the only proper person to file the appeal.

Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal considered the arguments put forth by the Revenue and found merit in them. The medical certificate provided by the appellant was deemed unclear and insufficient to justify the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the explanation regarding why the appellant's wife, as the proprietor, did not file the appeal herself. Additionally, the medical certificate lacked clarity on the appellant's health condition and the duration of his treatment in Malaysia. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a sufficient cause to condone a delay, which was not adequately demonstrated in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application to condone the delay and dismissed the appeals as time-barred.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of delay in filing appeals, the maintainability of appeals by third parties, and the sufficiency of cause for condoning delays. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided, including the appellant's health condition and business in Malaysia, were not substantial enough to justify the delay in filing the appeals. Moreover, the lack of clarity in the medical certificate and discrepancies in representation further weakened the appellant's case. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application to condone the delay and dismissed the appeals as they were not filed within the stipulated time frame.