2001 (4) TMI 528 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Principle of natural justice not followed in passing the impugned order.
2. Delay in filing the appeal and application for condonation of delay.
3. Requirement of notice in finalizing provisional assessment.
4. Application for excusing the delay not filed properly.
5. Applicability of cited case laws to the current case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a ship breaker, challenged an order passed by the Commissioner for not following the principles of natural justice. The vessel imported by the appellant was provisionally assessed and later a final assessment was made, demanding payment. The appellant contended that the order was made without following natural justice principles. The argument emphasized the necessity of notice and referred to relevant judgments, including one by the Supreme Court regarding the importance of natural justice in such cases.

2. The Department pointed out a delay of 74 days in filing the appeal without an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal highlighted the provisions under Section 128, Customs (Appeals) Rules, and the requirement for a proper application for excusing delay. The Tribunal rejected the argument that no written application was needed, emphasizing the importance of truthful submissions in judicial proceedings.

3. The Tribunal considered the requirement of notice in finalizing provisional assessments, citing specific rules and provisions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper procedures to be followed, especially in cases where appeals are filed belatedly. The argument that the appeal was a continuation of the enquiry process and must adhere to judicial standards was crucial in this analysis.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the application for excusing the delay, noting that it was not filed properly. Reference was made to a case law regarding the necessity of a written application in excusing delays. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, especially in invoking discretionary jurisdiction for excusing delays in filing appeals.

5. The Tribunal evaluated the applicability of cited case laws to the current situation. It differentiated between the cases cited and the specific circumstances of the appeal at hand. The Tribunal concluded that the cited judgments, although relevant in principle, did not directly apply to the present case due to procedural discrepancies. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the failure to file a proper application for excusing the delay, emphasizing the importance of following procedural requirements for invoking natural justice principles.