##PAGE1##

W.P.No.2196 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

W.P.No.2196 of 2025 and

WMP No.2548 of 2025

S.Maria Selvaraj : Petitioner

Vs.

1.Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (CESTAT)

Shastri Bhavan, Annexe Building, 1st Floor, 26-Haddows Road,

Chennai-600 006.

2.Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate,

Customs House, 60, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai-600 001. : Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned orders in Misc Order No.SO/MO/40388/2024-[CR] dated 14.11.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to condone the delay and number the appeal

C/COD/40637/2024 in Defect Appeal Diary No.41464 of 2024 and pass orders.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2026 05:58:23 pm )

W.P.No.2196 of 2025

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ganesh

For Respondents : Mr.G.Meganathan Junior Standing Counsel

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

dated 14.11.2024, whereby petitioner’s application for condonation of delay was

rejected.

2. Petitioner had suffered an order of adjudication dated 22.01.2019, wherein

gold valued at Rs.2,67,76,320/- was inter alia confiscated and penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals II), Seaport and appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 04.11.2019. Aggrieved by above order of the appellate authority, petitioner had filed a revision before Joint Secretary, (Revision Application), Government of India, through his counsel in F.No.373/456/B/2019-RA dated 11.11.2019. The above revision was filed by petitioner’s counsel Mr.Palanikumar, is who stated to have died sometime in the year 2021. The revision application came to be dismissed, five years after it came to be filed on 03.04.2024, on the premise that remedy against order of appellate authority is before CESTAT and hence found that revision was not maintainable. Petitioner had thereafter filed an appeal before

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2026 05:58:23 pm )

W.P.No.2196 of 2025

Tribunal against the order of Appellate authority dated 04.11.2019 along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 1690 days, in filing the said appeal. Tribunal vide order dated 14.11.2024 rejected application, on the premise that petitioner has not explained reasons for inordinate delay. Hence, present writ

petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner had explained

the above delay by stating that he had approached wrong forum on the basis of advice given by its erstwhile counsel and secondly, it was also stated that soon after the revisional authority had passed the order, rejecting revision as not being maintainable, petitioner had approached erstwhile counsel’s office and it took a while for papers to be traced as stated supra, the counsel, who had filed revision had passed away sometime in the year 2021. It is submitted that it is only for the above reasons there has been a delay of 150 days, if one excludes the time spent in

prosecuting the revision application.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

5. Learned counsel for respondent placing reliance upon a recent judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Cout in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy vs The Special

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/04/2026 05:58:23 pm )

W.P.No.2196 of 2025

Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 INSC 286 would submit that Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such