The court established that the delay in appeal filing justified merit consideration beyond procedural limitations, emphasizing adherence to consistent judicial treatment across tribunal jurisdictions.

JUDGMENT :

ANITA SUMANTH, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal'/'CESTAT') dated 11.11.2013 rejecting the appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the order of the first respondent was right in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s.Thakker Shipping Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2013-2 L.W.206, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Tribunal is within the powers to condone the delay, if it is satisfied that sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period?

2. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation despite the fact that the delay was explained satisfactorily and that sufficient cause was made for not presenting the appeal within the said period.

3. Whether the provisions of Section 129(a) of the CUSTOMS ACT can be imported to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 128 of the CUSTOMS ACT .

2. The Ministry of Agriculture had made a request on 26.05.1973 for exemption from payment of customs duty in respect of import of fertilizers.. The representation came to be considered favourably by the Ministry of Finance, and an adhoc exemption order bearing No.408 was issued on 26.07.1973.

3. Under that exemption order, and while accepting the prayer for exemption, import of fertilizers carried on board by various Vessels had been specifically considered. The import of fertilizer by the appellant was by a Vessel by name Kanishka. A Notification had been issued on 11.08.1973 reiterating the contents of exemption order dated 26.07.1973 and the same had also been circulated by the Ministry of Agriculture to all branches of the FCI.

4. Based on the minutes that had been circulated, a request for refund of the duty paid had been made by FCI at various locations including the District Office of FCI in Tuticorin.

5. To be noted, that the Vessel Kaniskha had offloaded consignments in two locations, one in Tuticorin, with which the present appeal is concerned, the second location being Visakhapatnam. Since the Vessel had berthed in Tuticorin even prior to the issuance of adhoc exemption order on 26.07.1973, delivery had been taken by the appellant on payment of duty under protest.

6. It is thus that representations dated 10.10.1973 and 13.08.1976 came to be made before the 4^th respondent, Superintendent of Central Excise, Customs Circle, Tuticorin/R4 seeking refund of the import duty paid. Those representations had come to be rejected by R4 on 25.08.1976 holding that the exemption did not have retrospective effect and would only operate prospectively on and from 26.07.1973.

7. According to the appellant, order dated 25.08.1976 is clearly contrary to the express and implied language of the adhoc exemption order. However, the appellant admittedly took no action as against order dated 25.08.1976 for the reason that the consignment offloaded at Visakhapatnam had also suffered the same fate as the present consignment. As against the denial of refund in that case, an a