Bharat Marble House vs C.C. (Import & General) New Delhi
- CitationCustoms Appeal No.55642 of 2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The delay in filing an appeal may be condoned only where the appellant pleads a satisfactory cause; a bare plea that the impugned order was misplaced, unsupported by any further explanation, does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of a long delay. Where condonation of delay is refused, the appeal itself falls for rejection as a consequence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Arising out of the order in appeal No.CC(A)CUS/50/2014 dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi .
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Bharat Marble House .. Appellants
Vs.
C.C. (Import & General) New Delhi . Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellants
Present Shri B.B. Sharma, A.R for respondent
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Final Order No. 51434/2015
Per Justice G. Raghuram:
On 2.2.2015, the COD application was adjourned to be heard today, in the presence of Shri Hemant Bajaj, representing the appellant. When the COD application is taken up for hearing today there is no representation on behalf of the appellant.
2. The COD application seeks condonation of a delay of 121 days in filing of the appeal. The appeal is preferred against the appellate order dated 18.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereby the appeal against the adjudication order dated 29.4.2013, passed by the Assistant of Customs (Preventative), New Delhi was rejected. It requires to be noticed that the impugned order was passed ex-parte because the appellants representative did not appear on any of the dates fixed for personal hearing, scheduled on 4 occasions by the appellate Commissioner.
3. In the COD Application, it is pleaded that the delay occurred since the appellant had misplaced the impugned order. As we find no satisfactory cause pleaded for condonation of the long delay, except a vague plea of having misplaced the impugned order, no case is made out for condonation of the delay.
4. COD application is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected as well.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
scd/
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free