M/S Jade Corporation vs Commissioner Of Customs Import)
- CitationAppeal No. C/87896, 87897/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The first appellate authority, having power to condone a delay of 25 days in filing appeals before it, was obliged to exercise that power and decide the appeals on merits rather than dismiss them as time-barred; appeals are to be disposed of on their merits and not on technicalities, and where a party has shown sufficient cause for a belated filing, the delay is to be condoned and the appeal restored for merits adjudication after observing the principles of natural justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 1330 & 1331 (Gr.III) 2014 (JNCH)/IMP-1278 & 1279 dated 19.03.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai II)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
M/s Jade Corporation Appellant Vs.
Commissioner of Customs Import), Nhavasheva Respondent
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Advocate for appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing: 29.06.2015 Date of Decision: 29.06.2015
ORDER NO
Per: M.V. Ravindran
These applications filed by appellants are for condonation of delay of 9/10 days in filing the appeals.
2. Heard both sides.
3. As the delay has been suitably justified, the applications for condonation of delay are allowed.
4. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeals themselves can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly we take up the appeals for disposal.
5. On perusal of the records, we find that the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeals for belated filing of the appeals before him by 25 days which is well within the power of the first appellate authority to condone. In our view, the first appellate authority should have exercised his power to condone the delay and consider the appeals on merits. Settled law holds that appeal should be disposed of on merits and not on technicalities. We find that the appellants have made out a case for belated filing of the appeals before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the first appellate authority and direct the first appellate authority to restore the appeals to their original No. and dispose of the same on merits after following principles of natural justice. (Dictated in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
nsk
??
??
??
??
1 2
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