1. Appeal filed with significant delay concerning a classification dispute. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 1125
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Commissioner Of Customs Chennai - Appellant
Versus
M/s Volex Interconnect (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal D. No. 9348 of 2021
Decided on : 16-07-2021
Important Points
Condonation of delay requires a cogent explanation, and the court will consider the merits of the case in reaching a decision.
Subject
Civil Law - Appeals and Condonation of Delay
Headnote
Condonation of Delay - Appeal - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed after a delay of 584 days, and the application for condonation of delay was not cogently explained.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was filed as a 'certificate case' without a cogent explanation for the delay. The court also examined the case on merits and found that the Tribunal had taken a correct view.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, condonation of delay, and merits of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the 'Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.' case to emphasize the need for a cogent explanation for condonation of delay. The court also considered the Department's treatment of the assessee in subsequent years for classification.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed due to the delay and the merits of the case.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shailesh Mudiyal, Adv.
Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv., Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv
For the Respondent: Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Ms. Mounica Kasturi, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shailesh Mudiyal, Adv.
Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv., Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv
For the Respondent: Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Ms. Mounica Kasturi, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought condonation of delay to bring the matter to court for closure. (Para 2 )
3. The delay lacked cogent explanation and the Department's consistent treatment of the assessee in subsequent years validated the Tribunal's classification view. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Condonation of delay requires a cogent explanation; consistent Departmental treatment of an assessee supports the validity of a classification finding. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. What is the legal requirement for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
The applicant must provide a cogent explanation for the delay, as established in the precedent of Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (Para 2 )
7. How does the Department's subsequent treatment of an assessee affect a classification dispute?
If the Department treats the assessee in the same manner for subsequent years regarding classification, it supports the correctness of the Tribunal's view on that classification. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
1. The appeal has been filed after a delay of 584 days and the application for condonation of delay sets out that though the appeal was allowed on 02.07.2018, by the time this order was examined, it was 19.11.2020, i.e. over two years have passed!
2. This is one more case of what we have already categorized as “certificate cases” and we do not delve further, as the purpose seems just to bring the matter to the Courts to put a closure to the same without giving any cogent explanation for condonation of delay in terms of “Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.”, (2012) 3 SCC 563.
3. We have also examined the case on merits despite the aforesaid and find that a correct view has been taken by the Tribunal as the Department itself is treating the assessee in the same manner for subsequent years so far as classification is concerned.
4. We are thus of the view that for both the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is not liable to be entertained.
5. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
