1985 (7) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131(B) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Delay of seven months in the appeal.
3. Request for condonation of delay by the appellants.
4. Exercise of judicial discretion in condoning the delay.
5. Dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT CALCUTTA involved the transfer of an appeal to the Tribunal under Section 131(B) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants, M/s. Hindustan Fertilizers Corporation Ltd., filed a Revision Application to the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, challenging an order passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The appeal was scheduled for hearing on two occasions, but the appellants failed to appear, leading to an adjournment and subsequent dismissal plea by the Respondent's J.D.R.

The key issue in the judgment revolved around a delay of seven months in filing the appeal, which was raised by the Learned J.D.R. for the Respondent. The appellants sought condonation of the delay citing misplaced documents and circumstances beyond their control. However, after considering the arguments and the records, it was concluded that the appellants did not establish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment delved into the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning the delay, emphasizing the cautious approach required post-limitation period. Citing precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment highlighted the need for a judicious evaluation of each case to determine if the delay could be condoned. The court referred to specific paragraphs from the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of State of W.B. v. Administrator of Howrah Municipality, emphasizing the importance of substantial rights acquired by the Respondent after the expiry of limitation.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation, as the delay was not deemed justifiable under the circumstances presented by the appellants. The judgment clarified that since the dismissal was based on limitation, there was no exploration into the merits of the appeal. The decision was announced in open court, marking the conclusion of the legal proceedings in this matter.