Customs penalty appeal dismissed due to late filing after 19 years; deemed service upheld.

The appeal challenging a penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs was dismissed by the Judicial Member. The appellant claimed to have received the order late, but verification confirmed timely receipt. Despite arguments on appeal limitation and case law applicability, the Judicial Member found the appeal time-barred after over 19 years without seeking condonation. The deemed service of the order was upheld, leading to the dismissal as the cited law by the appellant was deemed inapplicable, while the law cited by the AR aligned with the facts.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty by the Commissioner of Customs
2. Appellant's claim of receiving the impugned order late
3. Verification of the affidavit by the learned AR
4. Appellant's argument of the appeal being within limitation
5. Applicability of case laws cited by both parties
6. Determination of the appeal's maintainability based on service of impugned order

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000 imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant filed the appeal against the order dated 30.03.1994, claiming to have received it on 03.01.2014, despite the Commissioner's assertion of sending it on 28.04.1994.

2. The appellant submitted an affidavit stating that he received the Order-in-Original on 03.01.2014 due to being abroad during the relevant period. The learned AR was given time to verify the affidavit and later confirmed that the impugned order was sent by RPAD and received by the appellant on 12.05.1994.

3. Both parties presented their arguments regarding the date of receipt of the impugned order. The appellant contended that the appeal was within limitation as it was filed within the time frame from the date of receipt, relying on various case laws to support this claim.

4. The learned AR referenced legal precedents emphasizing that service of the impugned order through registered post constitutes effective service. The AR's argument was supported by cases highlighting the significance of proper postage and correct address for service to be deemed effective.

5. After considering the submissions and case laws cited by both parties, the Judicial Member concluded that the service of the impugned order on the appellant was proven by the Department. The acknowledgment signed by the appellant, even though disputed, along with the appellant's absence from India, did not negate the deemed service on the appellant through his agent.

6. Ultimately, the Judicial Member found the appellant's appeal to be time-barred, as it was filed after more than 19 years without seeking condonation. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the conclusion that the law cited by the appellant was not applicable to the case, while the law cited by the AR aligned with the facts presented, rendering the appeal not maintainable.

---