2020 (11) TMI 360 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for condonation of delay present or not - HELD THAT - It is well settled in law that the expression sufficient cause should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of justice and the same should not be used as a penal statute to punish the erring parties. From perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) it is evident that the order is solely based on non-issuance of EODC. The appellant was prosecuting the matter before the Director General of Foreign Trade for issuance of EODC and therefore the delay has been caused in filing the appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case in our considered opinion and in the light of the aforesaid legal position sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is made out. In the result delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue. Matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the appeal preferred by the appellant in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on the issuance of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC).
3. Interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.
4. Legal principles regarding condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.06.2018. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on substantial questions of law related to the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. The appeal arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bengaluru, on 21.01.2016. The appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 18.05.2018, which was dismissed on 20.06.2018 due to a delay of 751 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, primarily based on the non-issuance of the EODC.

3. The appellant argued that the delay was caused as they were pursuing the matter before the Director General of Foreign Trade for obtaining the EODC. The High Court considered the legal position that "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay should be liberally interpreted to advance the cause of justice and not used punitively. The Court referred to established legal precedents emphasizing this principle.

4. Upon examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court found that the delay in filing the appeal was justified due to the appellant's efforts in obtaining the EODC. The Court concluded that a sufficient cause for condonation of delay existed in this case. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the appellant against the revenue.

5. As a result of the analysis, the High Court quashed the Tribunal's order dated 20.06.2018 and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a decision on the appeal in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed, and the pending interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly.