Manish Vorani vs Union of India

Having heard both sides and perusing the entire Petition, we are of the view that the Tribunal could have taken and in law a reasonable and sympathetic view. The Petitioner was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai Zone-I, dated 15th October, 2010. He approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, that Appeal was beyond time and to be precise by 340 days. The application seeking condonation of this delay mentioned the cause as illness not only of the Petitioner but his family members. The Tribunal passes the initial order holding that there is absolutely no evidence on record and details of illness of either the Petitioner or his family members. The Petitioner once again approaches the Tribunal and prays that such an order be recalled and the voluminous record in the form of medical certificates, medical reports and opinion of the medical practitioners be considered. Even that application for restoration was dismissed. All this has resulted in this Writ Petition. Mr. Shah appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the Tribunal in the given facts and circumstances should have exercised its discretion and condoned the delay. The delay was caused not intentionally or deliberately. The Petitioner was not negligent but handicapped on account of he being alone in family and in business matters. The reasonable approach and by compensating other side with payment of costs, therefore, should have been adopted by the Tribunal, is the submission of Mr. Shah.

Mr. Jetly, appearing on the other hand, would submit that the conduct of the Petitioner is such that he was visited with an identical order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I. His Appeal to the Tribunal was also hopelessly time barred. It could not have been filed after one year. For these reasons, he submits that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

Having perused both orders, we are of the view that there was definitely material in the form of medical reports and records pertaining to the Petitioners and his immediate family members. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing as if the Petitioner failed to produce any evidence. That was definitely on record and its scrutiny would have enabled the Tribunal to exercise its powers to condone the delay and condone it if the cause was found to be reasonable and bona fide. Having noted the contents of both applications, namely, for condonation of delay and restoration, we are of the view that the delay of 340 days was capable of being condoned. The cause shown does not suffer from utter negligence or lack of bona fides. In these circumstances and when the reasons assigned for the delay were genuine, the initial application should have been allowed and the Petitioner given an opportunity to proceed with the Appeal on merits.

As a result of the above discussion, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The delay of 340 days in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal is condoned. The Appeal shall be heard on merits and in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.