Mono Steel India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

Gujarat HC3 Jul 2018SCA/1241/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a 657-day delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Setting aside the Tribunal's refusal, the Court ordered the appeal restored to the Tribunal's file for hearing on merits based on the petitioner's sworn non-receipt of service. The petition is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; impugned order of the Tribunal set aside; appeal restored to the Tribunal's file for merits hearing.

Mono Steel India Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs… — Company and Corporate | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/1241/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1241 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

MONO STEEL INDIA LIMITED

¶6

Versus

¶7

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS)

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR D K TRIVEDI(5283) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MR. PARTH H BHATT(6381) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

¶13

and

¶14

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

¶15

Date : 03/07/2018

¶16

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

¶17

1.The petitioner has challenged the order of
CESTAT dated 12.09.2017 by which the Tribunal
refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal
against the order of the appellate Commissioner.

¶18

2.Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the documents on record, we
notice that on the surface of it, the delay of
657 days in filing the appeal seems quite
serious. However, the simple explanation of the
petitioner was that he never received the copy of
the appellate order passed by the Commissioner,
which was the subject matter of appeal before the

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

C/SCA/1241/2018 ORDER

¶21

Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected such a defence on
the ground that no proof of delayed service was
produced. In our opinion, perhaps, the correct
question that the Tribunal could have posed was
that in view of the declaration which the
petitioner had made on oath about non-service of
the appellate order, was the Department able to
produce proof of its previous service. We had
given an opportunity to the Department to show
that the appellate order was duly served on the
petitioner within reasonable time. Counsel for
the Department candidly stated that he has no
such written proof.

¶22

3.Under the circumstances, delay is condoned.
The Tribunal is requested to hear the appeal of
the petitioner on merits, for which purpose, the
impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The
appeal is restored to the Tribunal’s file. The
petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(AKIL KURESHI, J)

¶24

(B.N. KARIA, J)

¶25

PRAVIN KARUNAN

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Mono Steel India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mono Steel India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nihar Dilipbhai Patel Vs Jalpaben D/O Prafulbhai Somabhai Patel

Western Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Original Claimants

Western Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Original Claimants

Atul Limited Vs Navdeep Enviro and Technical Service Pvt. Ltd.

Ahmedabad Cestat Bar Association Vs Union of India

Rupalba @ Rinkuba D/O Davendrasinh Ramsinh Mahida Vs Manubha Khodubha Zala