KRISHNAPPA SILK FACTORY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals filed by the appellants accompanied with the applications to condone the delay in filing these appeals. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the appellants had received the order passed by the Commissioner on 13 -1 -2001 and on normal course they should have filed the appeal within 90 days i.e. on or before 12 -4 -2002, as envisaged under Section 129D of the Customs Act. There was a delay of 175 days in filing these appeals. It was submitted on behalf of the parties that the appellants could not file appeals within the stipulated time since the appellant is having business establishment at Malaysia and also during the relevant time the appellant was staying at Malaysia. During that time, the appellant was admitted for treatment for slungles (Herpes Zoster). It was also submitted that the appellant was able to visit India only during the fourth week of September 2002. On coming to India, he handed over the relevant papers/documents to the Advocate to file an appeal. It was submitted that the delay has been caused due to unavoidable circumstances and accordingly requested that delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The Counsel specifically referred to the medical certificate given by the Doctor at Malaysia and the contents of the certificate is as under : - Re: Chandrashekar (Passport No. Z1476141) The above named patient was seen in January for his complaints. He was diagnosed as having herpes zoster and treated accordingly. Pain was quite severe and he was treated for this and advised follow -up for this problem from 24 -3 -2002 onwards.

(2.) SMT . Radha Arun, appearing for the Revenue submitted that the appeal as such is not maintainable. The matter was adjudicated in the name of Krishnappa Silk Weaving Factory and since the appellant being a proprietary concern and Smt. Poornima Nandini, Proprietrix of the concern should have filed the appeal. She has not filed any appeal as can be seen from the records. As such, the appeal filed by the third party on behalf of the proprietary concern is not maintainable in the eye of law. Furthermore, no appeal can be filed by Shri Chandrashekar since no penalty has been imposed on him as can be seen from the relevant impugned order. She drew my attention to the operative portion of the impugned order, which is as under : -

(3.) WE have carefully considered the matter. We find lot of force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue. Furthermore, the medical certificate said to be issued by the Doctor at Kuala Lumpur is not clear as it was rightly pointed out by the DR. It was also not properly explained by the Counsel how Shri Chandrashekar has filed an appeal on behalf of his wife being a Proprietrix of the concern. Further, the medical certificate is also not clear about his inhealth and the duration in which he was suffering which compelled him not to leave Malaysia. In view of the various discrepancies, we do not find any justification to condone the inordinate delay. It is well settled position now that to condone the delay not only there must be a cause and cause must be sufficient. In the instant case, neither the maintainability of the appeal has been explained nor sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of 175 days in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, application to condone the delay is hereby rejected. In the result, appeals are dismissed as barred by time.