Chirantan Mahendra Shukla vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2003 Latest Caselaw 1082 Bom

ORDER

1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. Petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.

2. This petition is directed against the order dated 18-6-2003 passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai ('CEGAT' for short), refusing to condone delay in 2 appeals bearing Appeal Nos. C/43 and 44 of 2003, holding that no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning delay in presenting appeals.

3. Petitioner claims to be a person who is operating as regular Custom House Clearing Agents under the name and style of M/s. Neptune Clearing Agency. On 13-4-1998 petitioner's CHA Licence had been suspended by order dated 13-4-1998 in a case of tampering with the documents of Bills of Entry by changing duty rates and violation of Regulations 14(1), 20(7) and 21(c) of the CHALR, 1984. However, on 16-10-1998 petitioner's licence was restored as per directions of the CEGAT contained order dated 16-10-1998 passed in the appeal. Final decision in the appeal is yet to take place.

4. Again on 8-5-2000 petitioner's CHA licence was suspended for violating Regulations 14(b), 14(I), 20(7) of the CHALR, 1984. The allegation was that petitioner had misdeclared the goods by carting goods of another Shipping Bill and has been involved in clearing of goods through marketing agent.

5. Once again on 3-10-2000, in another case, Respondent No. 3 passed an order suspending CHA Licence of the petitioner alleging that the report was received from the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai, that Navi Mumbai Police Station has seized 589.300 Kgs. of "Hashish" from Kalamoloi godown on 24-8-2000 in which the involvement of the petitioner was noticed.

6. The petitioners filed two appeals along with application for condonation of delay to challenge the above two orders. Applications were supported by affidavits explaining delay in filing the appeals.

7. It is no doubt true that the activities carried out by the petitioner if considered in its proper perspective, it can be hardly be said that there exists a case warranting exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner. However, we cannot overlook the fact that petitioner has a statutory right of appeal which cannot be denied to him. In the circumstances, taking little lenient view, we propose to condone the delay in presenting both appeals subject to payment of costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) in each appeal. Payment of costs shall be condition present. Costs to be deposited within 2 weeks with the Tribunal, for being paid to the Revenue, failing which petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed with costs.

8. In the event of payment of costs as ordered within the stipulated period, the Tribunal shall register both the appeals considering that delay has been condoned by this Court, subject to payment of costs and shall proceed to decide the appeals in accordance with law on its own merits as expeditiously as possible.

9. Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

10. Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Associate.