Tribunal dismisses appeal due to delay; Appellant's explanation deemed unsatisfactory.

The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against Order-in-Original No. 13/99 dated 29-10-1999. The Appellant's argument that she was unaware of the Order until 2003 was not accepted, as the Tribunal found that there was a significant delay in taking action even after being informed in 2000. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal against Order-in-Original No. 13/99 dated 29-10-1999.

Analysis:
The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was made by Mrs. Anjoo Devi in December 2003 against Order-in-Original No. 13/99 dated 29-10-1999. The advocate for the Appellant, Shri K. Kumar, argued that the impugned Order confiscating silver valued at Rs. 24,26,826/-, claimed by the late husband of the Appellant, was never received by her. The Appellant requested to be made a party after her husband's demise in 1994. She learned about the Order in 2000 and requested a copy in 2000. The Department informed her that the Order was undelivered and sent to her advocate. The Appellant received the copy of the Order in 2003 and filed the appeal in December 2003, stating there was no delay. An affidavit by Anjoo Devi confirmed she had not received the Order until 2003 through her advocate.

Opposing the prayer, Shri S. Bhatnagar argued that the Appellant's advocate received the Order on her behalf as it was sent to the known address. He highlighted a 10-month delay in taking action after the Department's communication in 2000, with no explanation provided except claiming ignorance of legal procedures due to being a widow. The Tribunal observed that the Order was sent to the known address, and as it was undelivered, it was served through the advocate. The Appellant did not deny this fact. The Tribunal found merit in the argument that the Appellant did not take immediate action after the Department's communication in 2000, with a significant delay until a request for the Order copy was made in July 2001, unexplained by the Appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal, even after becoming aware of the Adjudication Order, was not satisfactorily explained by the Appellant. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---