Mere non-receipt of adjudication order is not enough for condonation of delay in filing appeal

In a very interesting case regarding condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Commissioner Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of adjudication order, the Hon’ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has asked certain very pertinent questions from the Appellant. The Appellant has stated that he became aware of passing of the adjudication order only when recovery notice was served on him.

CESTAT has asked when Appellant has participated in the adjudication process which would have culminated in an adjudication order, why has he not followed up with the adjudication authority regarding passing of the order?

On the grounds that the Appellant has became aware of the adjudication order only on service of recovery notice, the departmental counsel has pointed out that the recovery notice mentioned in the appeal was the 5th reminder for recovery of the amount due. The fact that it is a 5th reminder was also mentioned in the said recovery notice. The Appellant has denied receiving first 4 reminders and filed a letter seeking certified copy of the adjudication order only on receipt of 5th reminder. At this stage, the Tribunal has come down heavily on the Appellant stating that as to why non receipt of earlier 4 reminders were not mentioned in the letter seeking certified copy. This has led to the impression that the Appellant has been sleeping over the first 4 reminders and woken up only on the 5th reminder.

This leads us to the age-old Latin maxim that 'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt', meaning law aids those the vigilant and not the negligent. With increasing economy, the stakes are also increasing. In such a situation, loosing a right to contest a tax demand on account of delay is almost criminal.

This incidence also throw light on the careful drafting of even a simple letter seeking certified copy of the adjudication order. Had the said letter mentioned non receipt of earlier 4 reminders, the condonation would have become a natural right of the Appellant.