M/S. Jain Biologicals Pvt. Ltd vs Cc (Port-Exp.), Chennai
- CitationAppeal No. 1539/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a defect in an appeal is curable, the appellate forum must afford the appellant an opportunity to remove that defect before the appeal is dismissed; a dismissal that refuses such an opportunity on the ground that the appellate forum is not the place for curing deficiencies violates the principles of natural justice. Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the appellant has been prevented from obtaining legal consultation and so could not file in time, and the appeal is then to be admitted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 1539/2013 dated 26.08.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai).
M/s. Jain Biologicals Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CC (Port-Exp.), Chennai : Respondent
Appearance
None For the applicant
Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N, PANDA, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. PERIASAMI, Technical Member
FINAL ORDER No. 40279 / 2015
Date of Hearing/Decision: 11.03.2015
Per: D.N. Panda
None present for the appellants. There is adjournment application on the ground that appellant is prevented to appear in the absence of the advocate. Record was looked into. Appeal has been filed with a delay of 15 days and the reason explained is that the appellant being prevented to get legal consultation could not file the appeal in time. Considering such difficulty, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.
2. When the Order-in-Appeal is looked into that throws light on the issue that appellant has neither replied to the defect memo for rectification of the defect nor appeared for personal hearing before the adjudicating authority, for which he came to ld. Commissioner (Appeals). But, that authority holding that the appellate forum is not a place for curing deficiencies, dismissed the appeal.
3. Appeal being a remedy to redress the wrong done, there will be violation of natural justice if no opportunity of removal of curable defect is granted. Therefore, appellant is directed to appear before the ld. adjudicating authority within a month on receipt of this order and remove the defect if any pointed out in the defect memo issued by the ld. Adjudicating authority. If the appellant carries out this direction and ld. Adjudicating authority is satisfied as to the rectification of the defect, he shall hear the appellant on merit and pass appropriate order. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is disposed of remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to pass appropriate order.
4. In the result, MA(COD) is allowed and the appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BB 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