Full Judgment
2000 Saturday/ Sun- day closed days).(i) 5-2-2000 to 16-2-2000 (Sickness - Affida- 11 days vit/Medical Certificate enclosed)(ii) During sickness relevant papers/order- 5 days in-original got mixed up and could not(iii) Could not get hold the papers sent a FAX to concerned C.H.A. on 21-2-2000(iv) Received papers from C.H.A. on 10-4- 47 days 2000.
2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate submitted that the applicants were not negligent in filing the appeal but the major delay occurred at Chennai as the Custom House Agent would get copies of the said documents only on 6th/7th April, 2000. He referred to the affidavit filed by the CHA in this regard. Further, he said that the issue relates to interpretation of import policy and prima facie strong case is in favour of the party. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v.Harish Chandra reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) wherein it was held that 'Normally, applicant seeking condonation of delay is duty bound to explain the reasons for delay; if the case deserve merits, court should consider the question of condonation from that perspective'.
3. Shri M.D. Singh, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue opposed the application.
4. I have carefully considered the matter. As can be seen from the records there is a delay of 63 days in filing the appeal. As per the date chart and explanation, the appeal could not be filed in time as he was not keeping up with good health from 5th February, 2000 to 16th February, 2000. This 11 days of delay was supported by an affidavit/medical certificate. Apart from this there was a delay of 52 days. According to the Counsel the delay was occurred since the party could not get documents from the concerned CHA in time and the papers were received only on 10th April, 2000. Delay of 52 days was occurred due to searching and getting papers. The ratio of the decision referred to by the Counsel is not applicable to this case. Facts of each case has to be decided in considering the delay in filing the appeal.
Supreme Court time and again has said that administrative reasons is not sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In the instant case delay was caused due to searching and tracing/getting the papers and same cannot be said to be sufficient cause to condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal. I am also not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the party that delay is to be condoned since the party has strong prima facie case in his favour. Whether party has got the strong case on merits or not is a question of fact which has to be looked into in detail and that can be done on proper examination. Prima fade it cannot be said that strong case in favour of the party. In view of the overall position and taking into consideration that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and major portion of the delay has not been properly explained, there is no justification to condone the delay. In the view I have taken, an application filed by the party to condone the delay is hereby rejected.
Consequently, Appeal No. C/132/2000 is dismissed as time bar.