Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Meghalaya State Electricity Board vs Collector Of Customs on 6 May, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1989(42)ELT132(TRI-DEL)
ORDER I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. We considered the application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, the Appellants received the impugned order on 15-7-1986. The Appeal was received on 14th November, 1986 in a wrong form and was later rectified and filed in the correct form of the appeal.
2. We have perused the affidavit filed by Shri Roland Vincent Lyngdoh, IAS, Chairman of the Appellants' Co. We have considered the reasons for delay as enumerated therein. We heard Shri Sharma in support of the application.
3. The Ld. SDR opposed the condonation of delay.
4. We considered the arguments of both sides. We note that some of the delay is explained by the Appellants' wrongly preferring revision before the Govt. of India. The Appeal became due to be filed in October 1986, a time when in Calcutta "Puja" disrupts normal working of offices. Keeping of the circumstances in view, we condone the delay.
5. The Ld. Consultant for the Appellants Sh. P.N. Sharma who has come from Calcutta requested that the Appeal may also be heard today. We granted the request, in the circumstances.
6. Shri Sharma submitted that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the sole ground that the appeal was filed more than 6 months after the receipt of the original order by the Appellants. He explained that there were valid and genuine reasons for the delay. He, therefore, requested that the delay in filing the appeal before the Collector may be condoned and the matter considered on merits.
7. Shri J. Gopinath opposed the arguments and submitted that the Collector of Customs (Appeal) had no power to condone delay beyond six months. He further argued that the Tribunal has no power to condone delay which has taken place before the Collector, especially when the Customs Law did not provide for the condonation of delay beyond six months.
8. We have considered the arguments of both sides. The legal position as represented by the Ld. SDR is correct. There is no provision in the Customs Law by which delay beyond six months in filing the appeal before the Collector can be condoned. We also agree that when the delay had taken place in filing the appeal before the Collector, the Tribunal cannot condone such delay. Therefore, however valid reasons there may be, it has to be held that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was legally correct in rejecting the appeal before him on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of the original order, and was therefore time-barred.
9. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.