Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2006 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (5) TMI 99 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing appeal - Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - time barred - power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the statute - HELD THAT:- As per Section 128 of the Act, an appeal by a person may be filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days from the date of communication to him of any decision or order passed under the Act by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Commissioner of Customs. The period of limitation prescribed under the Section commences from the date of communication of the decision or order and Section 128 does not say that the period of limitation commences only from the date of actual service of the decision or order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the fact that similar issue that arises for consideration in the Appeal filed by the petitioner is already decided in favour of the importers in other connected appeals and if the appeal is considered on merit by the first respondent the petitioner will get a favourable decision and on that basis submitted that the appeal may be remitted back to the first respondent to consider the same on merits. But the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner could not be countenanced as the appeal had been filed by the petitioner with the delay of 272 days, which is beyond the condonable period of 30 days provided in Section 128(1) of the Act. It could not also be countenanced for the reason that the proviso to Section 128(1) of the Act specifically stipulates that the Appellate Authority can condone the delay up to 30 days only. Therefore, unless the statute makes provision for condonation of delay or extension of time on cause being shown or otherwise, the Appellate Authority functioning within the framework of the statute cannot relax the time limits prescribed thereunder. Therefore, the impugned order of the first respondent is perfectly valid and legal and the same has to be sustained. Thus, the above writ petition fails and accordingly is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WPMP and WVMP are closed.
|