L.M. INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER allowing the application for early hearing, we proceed to decide the appeal itself, inasmuch as the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal only on the ground of limitation by refusing to condone the delay of 30 days and has not decided the matter on merit.

(2.) IT is seen that the appellant has placed on record the medical certificate of the proprietor of the unit to the effect that he had his arm fractured and had undergone operation, which subsequently developed some infection. The delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is of 30 days, which is within his power to condone. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that since the financial statement from the balance sheet revealed that the appellant was resourceful and as such should have engaged a consultant to avoid the delay in filing the appeal and as such the reason for the delay in filing of appeal is attributable to carelessness and negligence. We fail to understand as to how the financial health of the assessee has got anything to do with the condonation of delay. Shri Thakkar, Managing Director of the appellant -firm, who was looking after the entire activities and he having been hospitalized, should have been considered as reasonable ground for delay in filing the appeal. It is also seen that the entire duty including interest and penalty also stands deposited by the appellant even before filing papers before the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) WE , accordingly, condone the delay, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merit.