Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Commissioner of Customs - Appellant
Versus
Suraj Prakash Dua - Respondent
CUSAA 217 of 2019, CUSAA 213 of 2019, CUSAA 214 of 2019, CUSAA 215 of 2019, CUSAA 216 of 2019, CUSAA 219 of 2019, CUSAA 221 of 2019 and CUSAA 222 of 2019
Decided On : 15-11-2019
The court permitted the condonation of a substantial delay in appeals, emphasizing the need for CESTAT to review jurisdiction independently, following established judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Custom Act - Condonation of Delay - Appeals against impugned orders of CESTAT - The court condones a delay of 486 days in filing appeals, citing substantive judgments guiding the independent assessment of jurisdiction by CESTAT - Previous related appeals have established precedence for such condonation (Paras 2, 5, 6).
(B) Judicial Economy - The court emphasizes the importance of expediency in revenue collections, rejecting respondents' objections to delay condonation (Paras 3, 4).
Facts of the case:
The appeals stem from orders issued by CESTAT regarding customs matters involving monetary penalties and jurisdictional questions. The appellant sought to condone substantial delay based on a precedent that favored jurisdictional review by CESTAT (Para 1).
Findings of Court:
The court allows the condonation of delay, setting aside impugned orders and directing CESTAT to decide matters on merits, including penalty imposition (Paras 6, 7).
Issues: The court addressed whether to condone substantial delay in appeals and the proper identification of jurisdiction by CESTAT (Paras 2-5).
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that delays could be condoned in light of judicial economy and precedents favoring merits review by CESTAT, while also ensuring respondents' interests are protected (Paras 4, 6).
Result: Appeals allowed and disposed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of direct appeals filed against cestat orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding condonation of delay and precedent cases. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on condonation of delay amid prior orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. remittance of case back to cestat for merit examination. (Para 7) |
| 5. final decision allowing the appeals. (Para 8) |
ORDER
CM APPL. 42766/2019 in CUSAA 219/2019
CM APPL. 42763/2019 in CUSAA 221/2019
CM APPL. 42765/2019 in CUSAA 222/2019
1. The present appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in customs appeals preferred by the respective Respondents. The particulars of the impugned orders in respect of each of these cases are as follows:
| S.No. | Appeal No. | Date of Impugned Order | Respondent |
| 1. | CUSAA 217/2019 | 12.07.2017 | Shri Suraj Prakash Dua |
| 2. | CUSAA 213/2019 | 12.07.2017 | Shri Ashwani Dua |
| 3. | CUSAA 214/2019 | 03.07.2017 | Shri Ashok Kumar Jha |
| 4. | CUSAA 215/2019 | 03.07.2017 | Sh. Rakesh Arora |
| 5. | CUSAA 216/2019 | 12.07.2017 | M/S G N International |
| 6. | CUSAA 219/2019 | 09.10.2017 | Surinder Goyal, C/O Kshitiz Impex Pvt. Ltd. |
| 7. | CUSAA 221/2019 | 09.10.2017 | Disha Overseas Pvt. Ltd. |
| 8. | CUSAA 222/2019 | 09.10.2017 | Kshitiz Impex Pvt. Ltd. |
2. All these appeals have been filed with applications to seek condonation of delay which is in the range of around 486 days. Replies to the delay applications seeking condonation of delay has been filed in some of these appeals i.e. CUSAA 219/2019, CUSAA 221/2019 and CUSAA 222/2019. The submission of learned counsel for the Appellant is that in respect of similar impugned orders passed by the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Customs had preferred appeals before this Court which were decided in a batch, on 03.08.2018 titled as Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Col. Sanjeev Sethi and other connected matters. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that vide order dated 03.08.2018, the Court allowed the appeals following the earlier decision of this Court in Forech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, [CUSAA 67/2017] decided on 13.12.2017, thereby giving a direction to the CESTAT to independently apply its mind to the question of jurisdiction and decide the appeals on merit, including the aspect of imposition of penalty, if any. The submission of learned counsel for the Appellant is that there are about 500 such appeals which have been filed from time to time, after obtaining the requisite sanction. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if this Court directs the CESTAT to itself undertake the determination-including of the question of jurisdiction and other related matter, rather than requiring the Adjudicating Authority to do so in terms of the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondents, however opposes the prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that the same is substantial. He also relied upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Deo Kumar Singh and Ors., SLP (C) Dairy No. 13348/2019 decided on 09.05.2019, wherein the Supreme Court rejected a similar plea to seek condonation of delay of 728 days. In that case as well, the delay was sought to be condoned on the premise that the SLP had been filed "after obtaining all sanctions from the respective departments" which "took time to receive the affidavit and vakalatnama from the concerned department".
4. The aspect of condonation of delay has to be viewed in the light of the explanation furnished by the Appellant, as also in the context of the prejudice which would be caused to the Respondent, in case the delay is condoned. As noticed hereinabove, orders of similar nature passed by the CESTAT were not accepted by the department, and several other appeals were preferred in the year 2018 itself. The same have been allowed by this Court as early as on 03.08.2018.
5. The department has been preferring such l
