1985 (7) TMI 364 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Collector of Customs, Calcutta against Order No. Cal-Cus-1237/83 dated June 2, 1983, passed by Collector (Appeals), Calcutta.
2. Application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant.
3. Arguments presented by both parties regarding the delay in filing the appeal.
4. Legal provisions under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Analysis of the judgment regarding the condonation of delay and dismissal of the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta filed an appeal challenging an order passed by Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. The appeal was initially considered to be hit by limitation due to a discrepancy in the date of communication of the order. The appellant requested an adjournment to file an application for condonation of delay, which was granted for further consideration.

2. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) appeared on behalf of the appellant, presenting an application for condonation of delay, detailing the reasons for the delayed submission of the appeal. The appellant cited various circumstances, including obtaining authorization from the Collector and dispatching the appeal, leading to the delay in filing.

3. The SDR referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court emphasizing the need for a liberal view in condoning the delay, asserting that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for the late submission. In contrast, the Chartered Accountant representing the respondent argued against condonation, stating that the appellant failed to establish a case for condonation of delay.

4. The judgment highlighted the relevant legal provisions under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, providing the Appellate Tribunal with the authority to admit an appeal after the expiry of the limitation period if sufficient cause is demonstrated for the delay in filing the appeal.

5. After considering the arguments and legal provisions, the Tribunal observed that the appellant did not justify the condonation of delay adequately. Citing previous judgments, including those by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving sufficient cause for delay. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being hit by limitation, without delving into the merits of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the procedural aspects, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the appeal based on the failure to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing.