Case Law Details
Mobis India Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court recently intervened in a customs dispute involving Mobis India Limited to condone a 145-day delay in filing an appeal. The case, which came before the court after the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rejected the company’s appeal for a lack of a proper explanation, highlights the judicial discretion in matters of procedural delays.
Initially, Mobis India’s appeal against a Principal Commissioner of Customs order was dismissed by the Tribunal. The company had failed to file the appeal within the three-month statutory period, attributing the delay to a misplaced order and an employee’s oversight. The Tribunal, finding the explanation insufficient, refused to condone the delay.
However, during the High Court hearing, Mobis India’s counsel presented new, compelling evidence: a medical certificate for the employee, S. Saranya, and internal company memos. The documents proved that the employee, who was responsible for the order, was out of office for an extended period (from October 4 to December 20, 2024) due to a severe case of chicken pox. This absence led to the order being overlooked. The appeal was only filed after the customs department contacted the company in April 2025 regarding the outstanding duty.
The High Court acknowledged that while it would normally be hesitant to admit new evidence not presented to the Tribunal, the medical explanation provided a “compelling” and “satisfactory” reason for the delay. The court concluded that the delay was not intentional or a result of bad faith. Citing the principle of sufficient cause, which allows for procedural deadlines to be relaxed when a party can show a legitimate and compelling reason for non-compliance, the court set aside the Tribunal’s order and restored the appeal.
This decision serves as a judicial precedent, underscoring that courts may exercise their inherent powers to ensure substantive justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities, especially when genuine reasons for the delay are proven. The court’s order effectively gives Mobis India a chance to have its appeal heard on its merits by the Tribunal. The court also dismissed a separate writ petition filed by Mobis India challenging the original order, as that matter will now be heard by the Tribunal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
In W.P.No.30552 of 2025, the petitioner has challenged an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (in short ‘Tribunal’) dated 09.07.2025 rejecting the appeal filed challenging the order-in-original passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, albeit with a delay of 145 days.
2. Normally, we would not interfere in a discretionary order of this nature, where the Tribunal has been of the view that proper reasons have not been made out persuading them to condone the delay.
3. The application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant admittedly, contains no proper explanation and we hence cannot ascribe any blame upon the Tribunal for arriving at the conclusion that it has. In the condonation application, the delay has been explained as follows:
………..
3. It is submitted that the appellant was not aware of the impugned order until they received oral communication from the Customs on payment of duty as ordered in the impugned order. Immediately, the appellant verified with their logistics department and came to know that the impugned order was misplaced by the concerned staff and she failed to put up the same to the knowledge of the head of the department for taking further course of action.
4. It would not go out of the context to mention that in respect of import of same BCM/IBU through Chennai Sea Customs, the classification of CTH 9032 was accepted by the Chennai – II Import Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No.84604/2021 dated 31.05.2021, against which the Customs Department has filed an appeal (Appeal No.C/0040614/2021-DB) and the same is pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Hence, it is obvious that we would have filed appeal against the impugned order within the time limit but for the failure of the concerned staff to bring the same to the knowledge of the appellant company.
5. It is submitted that the delay is purely unintentional and due circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and there has been no mala fide intent.’
4. Before us, Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, while acceding that the delay had not been properly explained before the Tribunal, produces the following documentary evidences to justify the delay of 145 days: i) Medical Certificate of S.Saranya (employee) dated 04.10.2024, ii) Official Memo issued to the employee on 28.09.2024 and iii) Explanation of the employee dated 30.04.2025.
5. The aforesaid documents have been filed only before us and have not been produced before the Tribunal. However, they are supported by affidavit dated 01.08.2025 accompanying the Writ Petition. We would also, under normal circumstances have been reluctant to consider new documents, but however, are persuaded in light of the explanation that is tendered now.
6. The relevant dates in the matter are as follows:
(a) The impugned order of the Principal Commissioner of Customs is dated 28.09.2024.
(b) The date of receipt of the aforesaid order is on 01.10.2024.
(c) Limitation under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 for filing of appeal before the Tribunal is three months from date of receipt of order.
(d) The limitation expires on 01.01.2025.
(e) According to the affidavit filed by the Deputy General Manager of the company, who heads the Department where the concerned employee was stationed, the impugned order was received by the employee and kept on file. However, she was absent between 04.10.2024 and 20.12.2024 for medical reasons.
(f) A medical certificate of the employee has been produced, wherein it is stated that the employee was afflicted with ‘very severe chicken pox with pustular lesions of the face & trunk, severe aphthous stomatitis (oral & throat) respiratory infection’.
7. The employee had returned to duty on 23.12.2024 but had lost sight of the order in between. In April, 2025, the authorities of the Department had contacted the petitioner seeking recovery of the demand, thereafter, an enquiry was caused and on 29.04.2025, the concerned employee had located the order. The appeal was hence filed on 15.05.2025 with a delay of 145 days.
8. The above reasons are compelling and explain the delay satisfactorily. We are hence of the considered view that the delay has been explained and sufficient cause has been made out. The impugned order is, hence, set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal.
9. The first hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal shall be on 03.09.2025 and no notice need be issued for the aforesaid hearing of the appeal, as the same has been taken note of by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. W.P.No.30552 of 2025 stands allowed. Since order-in-original dated 28.09.2024, is the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in the appeal, W.P.No.30557 of 2025, challenging the same order stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Author Bio
