Tasleem Ahmad vs. Commissioner Of Customs

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It found no merit in the appellant's submission that he had not preferred the earlier appeal, noting that the appellant failed to provide an affidavit to explain the situation when granted an opportunity by the CESTAT. The Court reasoned that a counsel would not file an appeal without instructions from the client. The Court agreed with the CESTAT's finding that the appellant had abused the process of the Tribunal by filing a fresh appeal against the same order after a previous one was dismissed. The High Court considered the imposition of costs of Rs.10.00 Lakhs by the CESTAT to be lenient and stated that it was a fit case for initiation of perjury proceedings, though it chose not to pursue it. The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Uttarakhand Legal Services Authority. The Court explicitly stated that it was examining the appeal on merits and therefore not going into the aspect of delay.

Facts

The appellant, Tasleem Ahmad, filed a writ appeal before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an order dated April 11, 2022, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had rejected the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated June 30, 2017, passed by the Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun. The appellant claimed he was unaware of the Commissioner's order until recovery proceedings began on February 21, 2019, and that he filed his appeal promptly upon gaining knowledge. However, the respondent (Commissioner of Customs) disclosed that the appellant had previously filed a similar appeal (Central Excise Appeal No.50087 of 2018) which was dismissed by the CESTAT on January 11, 2018, for non-deposit of the statutory amount. The appellant failed to appear before the CESTAT to explain this discrepancy and the filing of a fresh appeal against the same order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in rejecting the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 30.06.2017, considering the appellant's claim of delayed knowledge and the respondent's disclosure of a previously dismissed appeal? The petitioner argued that he had not preferred the earlier appeal as he had not signed the memo of appeal or the Vakalatnama. He contended that he was unaware of the order dated 30.06.2017 until recovery proceedings commenced on 21.02.2019, and therefore, his appeal was filed within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge. The respondent contended that the appellant had previously filed an appeal against the same order, which was dismissed by the CESTAT on 11.01.2018, for non-compliance with statutory deposit requirements. The respondent also highlighted that the same counsel represented the appellant in both appeals. The respondent argued that the appellant's conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of the Tribunal.