IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3108 of 2011() -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MOHAMMED FARIZ & CO., P.O.CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP BY MG PARTNER M.M.IBRAHIM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) CUSTOM HOUSE, COCHIN 682 009. BY ADV.SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCISE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3108 of 2011 K ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an importer of betel nuts. In respect of one consignment, there was a demand for short levy amounting to `3,98,613/-. After various rounds of litigation against the order of adjudication, appeal was filed before the Tribunal, copy of which is Ext.P4. Along with the appeal, Ext.P5 application for condonation of delay of 964 days was filed. In the affidavit, it is stated thus:- “ I submit that thereafter, even though the impugned Annexure-A order was received, the appellant omitted to file appeal against the impugned order due to an inadvertent oversight of the appellant's accountant and hence the Revenue is demanding for the short levy duty of `3,98,613/- from the appellant. Immediately after noticing the non-filing of the present appeal against the impugned Annexure-A order, I had entrusted my counsel and within W.P.(C) No.3108/2011 : 2 : the shortest time period, the present appeal is filed. However, there occurred a delay of 964 days in filing the present appeal. Hence I had filed a petition to condone the delay of 964 days along the appeal.” 2. This application was considered by the Tribunal and by Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal rejected the application. It is this order which is under challenge. A reading of Ext.P6 order shows that according to the Tribunal, the appellant has not any justifiable reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The only question that falls for examination is whether the view taken by the Tribunal in Ext.P6 warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As already seen, apart from stating that the delay has occurred on account of an inadvertent oversight of the petitioner's accountant, there is absolutely no explanation or elaboration about the alleged inadvertent oversight. In my view, the reason stated is far from satisfactory, requiring condonation of W.P.(C) No.3108/2011 : 3 : such a long delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I am not persuaded to take a view different from that of the Tribunal. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge