Tribunal dismisses appeal due to time-barred filing despite appellant's reasons.

The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the Commissioner of Customs' decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred due to a delay in filing. The appellant's argument that they were unaware of the adjudication order and the delay was caused by their counsel misplacing the case file was not accepted. Despite citing precedents supporting the condonation of delay in similar situations, the Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time after receiving the adjudication order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on the verified records and lack of evidence supporting the appellant's contentions.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of appeal as time-barred due to delay in filing.

In this case, the appellant filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 3-ICD/93, dated 13-1-93, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the adjudication order dated 26-6-89 until 8-7-92 when directed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to deposit the confirmed amount. The appellant's authorized counsel misplaced the case file, leading to a delay in filing the appeal, which was eventually filed on 30-12-92. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhag Singh v. Major Daljit Singh, emphasizing the need for a just view in considering delay under the Limitation Act. Additionally, the appellant cited the Tribunal's decision in Chatterjee Engine v. CCE, supporting the condonation of delay when papers were lost in the advocate's office. The appellant contended that the adjudication order was never communicated to them, referring to the Tribunal's ruling in Damodar Bedi v. CC, Bombay, regarding the date of communication in the absence of evidence from the department.

The Commissioner of Customs noted that the adjudication order dated 26-6-89 was dispatched to the appellant via registered post on 10-7-89, paying registration charges of Rs. 6.90. The postal receipt was attached to the despatch register. Despite the appellant's claim of receiving an attested photocopy of the adjudication order on 10-9-1992, they failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. The Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court's judgment cited by the appellant was distinguishable as it involved agriculturists living in villages, unlike the importers in the present case. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the appeal papers were lost in the advocate's office since the record showed the adjudication order was dispatched on 10-7-89. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision based on the verified records, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

---