Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay and Communication Discrepancies

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing lack of substantiated reasons for the delay and discrepancies in the date of communication of the impugned order. Despite arguments for a liberal view, the Tribunal upheld the department's position, following precedents regarding service by registered post. Consequently, the appeal and stay application were dismissed as time-barred, with the judgment pronounced in open court.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed two applications before the Tribunal, one for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the other for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The first application pertained to a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal, with the appellant citing being "mentally disturbed and in continuous stress" as the reason for the delay. The appellant claimed that the impugned order was communicated to him on 22-8-2008, although documents produced by the Revenue indicated earlier service of the order on the appellant's advocate on 4-4-2007. Medical records submitted by the appellant did not substantiate the claimed reasons for the delay.

2. The Counsel for the appellant argued that the delay should be reckoned from the date of communication of the impugned order, which he contended was 22-8-2008. He referenced case law to support his argument for a liberal view in the circumstances of the case. However, the SDR contended that the Tribunal's precedent in Margra Industries was contrary to the High Court's ruling in P. Bhoormal Tirupati case, and hence should not be followed.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found the appellant's reason for delay unsubstantiated. The prime issue revolved around the date of communication of the impugned order. The appellant's claim of receiving the order on 22-8-2008 contradicted evidence of earlier service on his advocate. The Tribunal held that the order was duly served on the appellant on 4-4-2007 through his Counsel, as per the provisions of Section 153 of the Customs Act.

4. Even if there was no direct service, the Tribunal found in favor of the department regarding service by registered post on 5-4-2007. Citing the High Court's ruling in P. Bhoormal Tirupati case, the Tribunal held that service by registered post was deemed proper unless disproved. The Tribunal noted the lack of explanation for the delay in the appeal prior to 22-8-2008, leading to the dismissal of the application and the appeal as time-barred.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and the stay application. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court.

---