9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. Analysis: The judgment pertains to applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The delay in question amounted to 11 months and six days. Initially, an adjournment was granted to allow the applicant to obtain further particulars from the Collector of Customs regarding the delay. When the matter was taken up again, the appellant's representative and one respondent's advocate were present, while the other respondents were not represented. The appellant's representative informed the Bench that the Collector was unable to provide any additional facts to explain the delay apart from what was already stated in the application. The representative requested the application to be decided based on the existing material. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate opposed the condonation of delay, highlighting that the reasons provided in the application were insufficient. The advocate argued that since similar appeals had been filed earlier, there was no need for further legal advice or delay in filing the current appeals. The advocate also mentioned a case where a refund had been granted post the order-in-appeal. The Bench carefully considered the arguments and facts presented. They noted that despite the appeals being on the same issue and the office of the Collector being in close proximity to the Tribunal, the delay was not justified. The Bench found the reasons insufficient and the delay unjustifiable, ultimately rejecting the applications for condonation of delay in all three appeals. This judgment underscores the importance of timely filing of appeals and the need for justifiable reasons for seeking condonation of delay. It highlights that mere repetition of arguments without additional substantial facts may not suffice to warrant condonation of delay. The judgment also emphasizes the duty of parties to act diligently in pursuing legal remedies, especially when similar matters have been previously addressed. The decision serves as a reminder that delays in filing appeals should be adequately explained and justified to receive favorable consideration from the Tribunal.
|
