Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Classic Marble vs Commissioner Of Customs on 25 February, 2004
ORDER Krishna Kumar, Member (J)
1. Shri Anil Balani, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicants and Shri Sanjay Singhal, Ld. JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.
2. The Ld. Counsel submitted that there is a delay of about 11 months in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. His contention is that the Order-in-Appeal was issued by the Department on 10.01.02 and the same was received by the applicants in the last week of January 2002. Therefore, the last date for filing the appeal was last week of April 2002 whereas the appeals have been filed in the Tribunal on 28th March 2003. Hence a delay of about 11 months. He contended that the Central Intelligence Unit searched the office premises of the Applicant on 02.01.2002 and seized several files and interalia containing import documents and other papers pertaining to the instant case and similar cases. When the impugned Order-in-Appeal in the appeal were received by the applicant, it was not possible to connect the same with its respective files. Hence all such orders were kept in a single file by Shri Vikas Kedia, who was looking after the legal formalities of the Applicant. The files were received back from the CIU after some time. Unfortunately, in the meantime the said Shri Vikas Kedia left the job without briefing anyone in the office about the pending legal works. Further, Shri Mafatlal P. Shah, Senior Partner of the Applicant firm was also not attending the office for a long time due to his ill health. Finally he had to be taken to USA for further treatment. Due to the pressure of regular work the applicant's staff could not pay any attention to this issue. However, when all the documents were collected for audit by CA's towards the end of the financial year, the file containing the instant Orders-in-Appeal was noticed by the staff in the first week of March 2003. The applicant immediately contacted its Advocates, who advised that appeal should have been filed. The delay was not deliberate or intentional on the part of the applicants and, therefore, he submitted that the same may be condoned and the appeals be heard on merits.
3. Shri Sanjay Singhal, Ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue contended that the applicant have failed to explain each days delay in filing the appeals adequately to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. He contended that the applicants in the application for condontion of delay have stated that the files were received from CIU after some time. No specific date has been given as to on what date the files were received from GIU. He, submitted that the applicants have intentionally not given the date in order to cover the fault and such a long delay in filing the appeal. He, further, contended that perusal of the application for condontion of delay shows negligence on the part of the applicants as They did not bother for filing the appeals in time and as such there is no justification for condontion of delay in filing the appeals.
4. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the applicant have utterly failed to explain adequately to the satisfaction of this Tribunal each day's delay in filing the appeals. We, therefore do not find any merits in the application for condontion of delay. The same are accordingly dismissed. With the result the appeals filed by the applicants also fail and the same are also dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Court on 25.2.04)