2013 (11) TMI 445 - HC - Customs

Late Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay in Service

The appellant filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal over 10 years after the order of adjudication. Despite the ... Condonation of delay - Status of order not informed - Change in address - Appeal filed with a gap of 10 years from the date of the order of adjudication - Held that:- several attempts were made to serve the appellant by registered post. The operation reports which have been referred to in the order of the Tribunal indicated that the appellant was absconding since there was a COFEPOSA detention order against him, pending execution during the period. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai by an order dated 28 September 2001 required the presence of the appellant on 21 December 2001 by cancelling the bail issued to him earlier. Eventually as required under Section 153(b), a copy of the order was displayed on the notice board of the Customs house. The Tribunal was under the circumstances justified in coming to the conclusion that service was duly complete as required under Section 153 and if the appellant had changed his address, it was his duty to inform the authorities. As a matter of fact, the appellant was absconding in view of the COFEPOSA detention order and the proclamation made for his appearance. The appellant was evading the service of summons. No case for condonation of delay is made out - Decided against Appellant. Issues:- Delay in filing the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal- Service of order under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962- Absconding of the appellant and implications on the service of summons- Justification of the Tribunal's conclusion on service completion- Condonation of delay in the appeal- Presence of substantial question of law in the appealDelay in filing the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal:The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal after more than 10 years from the date of the order of adjudication passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant claimed that he changed his residence, and only upon requesting the department was he informed of the status of his case. The Tribunal noted the significant delay and the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay.Service of order under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962:Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 outlines the methods for serving orders, decisions, summons, or notices. The Tribunal observed that several attempts were made to serve the appellant by registered post. Due to the appellant being absconding with a COFEPOSA detention order pending execution, the order was eventually displayed on the notice board of the Customs house as per Section 153(b). The Tribunal found that the service was duly completed as required under the section.Absconding of the appellant and implications on the service of summons:The appellant was found to be absconding in light of the COFEPOSA detention order and the proclamation for his appearance. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant was evading the service of summons, which had implications on the completion of service as per the legal requirements.Justification of the Tribunal's conclusion on service completion:Based on the circumstances, including the absconding of the appellant and the service attempts made, the Tribunal concluded that the service was completed in accordance with Section 153 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that it was the duty of the appellant to inform the authorities of any change in address and that no case for condonation of delay was established.Condonation of delay in the appeal:The Tribunal found that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law and, therefore, dismissed it. The appellant's argument for condonation of delay was not accepted, considering the circumstances surrounding the case, including the appellant's absconding status and the completion of service as per legal requirements.Presence of substantial question of law in the appeal:The Tribunal concluded that the appeal did not present any substantial question of law warranting further consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on this finding.