2013 (11) TMI 758 - AT - Customs

Customs Act Duty Upheld, Appeal Dismissed as Time-Barred for Incomplete Service

NITESH A SADARANGANI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), MUMBAI

The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, amounting to Rs.1,60,90,028/- with interest and a ... Condonation of delay - Appeal time barred - Service of order delayed by 10 years - Held that:- order was sent by registered post and it came back undelivered and thereafter, it was tried to be served by sending a person and the same also could not be done because the appellant was absconding. It is also seen from the records that the order was displayed on the notice board. Therefore the service of the order, as envisaged under Section 153 of the Customs Act, had been completed by way back in June 2002. Therefore the plea of the appellant that he got the order only in October 2012 after a gap of more than 10 years cannot be accepted. Modes of service provided in Section 153 are alternate methods by which attempts can be made to serve an order or decision under the Customs Act. Therefore, service by any of the modes is sufficient for the purposes of the said section. Viewed in this perspective, the service has been completed in the instant case way back in 2002. If the appellant had changed the address, it was his duty to inform the change of address to the respondent which he has not done. On the other hand, it is evident that the appellant was absconding in view of the COFEPOSA detention order issued against him and the proclamation made for his appearance by canceling the ball. In other words, the appellant was eluding the law and therefore such a person cannot be given the benefit of condonation of any delay - Following decision of Chellappan Vs Addl. Collector of Customs [1975 (10) TMI 24 - High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam] - Condonation of delay denied. Issues:1. Appeal and stay application against duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.2. Time bar for filing appeal due to delayed receipt of order.3. Completion of service of order under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to an appeal and stay application challenging an order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs confirming duty demand, confiscation of goods, and imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The duty demand of Rs.1,60,90,028/- was upheld along with interest and a penalty of Rs.50 lakhs on the appellant. The issue at hand involved the legality of the order and the subsequent appeal against it.2. The appellant filed the appeal after a significant delay of more than 10 years from the date of the original order, raising concerns about the appeal being time-barred. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to not receiving the order earlier as he had changed his address. The appellant argued that the service of the order was incomplete until 2012, when he became aware of it. The Tribunal examined the timeline of events and the appellant's submissions regarding the delayed receipt of the order.3. The crux of the matter revolved around the completion of service of the order as per Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue presented evidence indicating that attempts were made to serve the order through registered post and in person, but the appellant was absconding during that period. The Revenue also highlighted that a proclamation was issued for the appellant's appearance due to a detention order against him. The Tribunal observed that the service of the order was completed back in 2002, as per the records provided by the Revenue, including displaying the order on the notice board of the Customs House.4. The Tribunal referred to a precedent from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, emphasizing that the modes of service under Section 153 are alternative methods to serve an order. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim of receiving the order in 2012 after a decade was not acceptable. It was noted that the appellant's failure to inform the authorities about the change in address, coupled with the circumstances of absconding, precluded the appellant from seeking condonation of the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred and dismissed it on that ground.