2017 (6) TMI 698

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l has rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order in appeal dated 29.04.2016, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) [in short, the Commissioner (Appeals)]. 2.1.There is no dispute, before us, by the learned counsels appearing for the parties that the appeal with the Tribunal had to be preferred, within a period of three months, from the date of communication of the order of Commissioner (Appeals), under the provisions of Section 129 A (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, the Act ). 3.The record shows that the appellant had been served with a show cause notice dated 22.04.2013, proposing to deny the benefit of exemption Notification bearing No.85 of 2004. The said show cause notice also proposed to levy .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re us, and that, which was articulated before the Tribunal, that the delay was caused, on account of the counsel, who was handed over the brief, failing to keep track of the period of limitation for lodging the appeal, before the Tribunal. 6.1.For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to the application for condonation of delay, filed with the Tribunal. 6.2.The Tribunal, however, by a cryptic order, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the accompanying appeal, on the ground that the appellant had forgotten its own responsibility that it had to file the appeal in time. The Tribunal went on to observe that the appellant was indolent and therefore, the delay could not be condoned. The fact that papers ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Tribunal, to his Advocate, in September, 2016. 10.3.The appellant, as it appears, assumed that the Advocate would act with haste and lodge the appeal, before the period of limitation expired. To the surprise of the appellant, necessary steps, were not taken by the Advocate, in time. 11.According to us, the appellant, in the given circumstances, cannot be put to prejudice, because of the lack of professionalism of the Advocate engaged by it. 11.1.The period of delay, according to us, is not so large that it could not be condoned, by putting the appellant to terms. 12.In these circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay and consequently, are also of the view, that the order of the Tribunal ought to be set-aside. 12.1.It is di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X