Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 434 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing appeal - rejection of appeal on the ground of time bar - sufficient cause for delay given or not - HELD THAT:- No doubt the appeal was filed within the period of 90 days that is during such period for which the statute vests discretion in Commissioner (Appeals) for condoning the delay subject to being satisfied of the sufficient cause for the said delay. Reverting to the facts of the present case pertaining to limitation it is observed that the cause/ reason for delay was mentioned as critical mental health problem of the appellant, for which no medical evidence was provided by the appellant to Commissioner (Appeals). Appellant rather mentioned that he had not sought a medical opinion because his mental critical condition was only due to financial pressure because of the impugned Order-in-Original confirming the duty demand with interest & penalty. These submissions are highly insufficient to be called as "sufficient cause" for Condonation of the impugned delay. Law of limitation is founded on the public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim ‘interest reipublicue up sit finis litium’ which means it is for the general welfare that a period be put to a litigation. No doubt the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties but simultaneously the objective of these rules is to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but should seek their remedy promptly - Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF C. EX., MADRAS VERSUS A. MD. BILAL & CO. [1999 (2) TMI 70 - SC ORDER] declined to condone the delay therein for filing the appeal because there was no satisfactory or reasonable explanations rendered for condonation of delay. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that sometimes on certain occasions the Courts have taken a view that delay should be condoned with a liberal attitude, while on certain other occasions, the Court has taken stricter view and wherever the explanation was not satisfactory, the applications seeking condonation of delay have been dismissed. Heavy burden lies on such appellant to explain the delay sufficiently, for each day. The explanation on ground of illness, given by appellant is held to be absolutely vague in the present case as the appellant could not substantiate with any medical record. Hence, possibility of appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) to be an afterthought and a time gaining strategy cannot be ruled out. Appeal dismissed.
|