2016 (8) TMI 526 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Grants Condonation of Delay for Appeal Filing

Shri Praveen Singh Patwal Versus C.C.E. Delhi

The Tribunal, comprising Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri V. Padmanabhan, allowed the Condonation of Delay application, condoning the delay in filing the ... Condonation of delay – appeal – waiver of show cause notice by appellant – attending the personal hearing – filing of RTI application to get the documents – delay in filing appeal as appeal filed after receipt of the documents – Held that: - there is no system of providing RUD along with order but the fact that the appellant entered into a correspondence with the Revenue for supply of these documents, so as to enable them to file the appeal before the higher appellate forum, reflects the fact that the appellant was vigilant about his right to challenge the order. He may not be a legal expert to know that RUDs are never supplied with the order but in his ignorance spent time to procure the same - no intentional lapse on the part of the appellant – condonation of delay allowed – decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of Delay (COD) application, Receipt of impugned order, Correspondence for documents, Waiver of show cause noticeDelay in filing appeal:The judgment revolves around the issue of delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner on 25.06.2015, but the appeal was filed on 04.05.2016, resulting in a delay of 4 months. The appellant had written letters to the Commissioner to inquire about the status of their case and the order, with one letter even informing about a change of address. However, the impugned order was sent to the old address. The appellant later filed an RTI application to obtain the order's status, which was provided on 06.10.2016. The Tribunal considered the date of receipt of the order as 14.10.2015, and the normal period for filing the appeal expired around 14.01.2016.Condonation of Delay (COD) application:The appellant explained the delay by stating that the adjudication order was passed without a show cause notice, and they had to correspond with the department to obtain relied upon documents. They eventually filed the appeal with a Condonation of Delay. The Revenue argued that there was no system of providing RUD along with the Order In Original, and the appellant had waived the show cause notice by attending the personal hearing without objection.Receipt of impugned order:The issue of the appellant receiving the impugned order at their old address despite informing about a change of address was considered. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's efforts to procure necessary documents for filing the appeal, indicating their vigilance in challenging the order. Although there is no system of providing RUD along with the order, the appellant's actions were deemed reasonable, and the delay was condoned.Correspondence for documents:The appellant engaged in correspondence with the Revenue to obtain relied upon documents for the appeal. This correspondence was a crucial factor in justifying the delay in filing the appeal. Despite the absence of a system for providing certain documents, the appellant's proactive approach in seeking the necessary information was taken into account by the Tribunal.Waiver of show cause notice:The Revenue argued that the appellant had waived the show cause notice by attending the personal hearing without raising any objections. However, the appellant's explanation regarding the need for certain documents and the subsequent filing of the appeal with a Condonation of Delay indicated a valid reason for the delay, which was accepted by the Tribunal.In conclusion, the Tribunal, comprising Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri V. Padmanabhan, allowed the Condonation of Delay application, condoning the delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant's efforts to obtain necessary documents and their vigilance in challenging the order despite facing administrative challenges in receiving the impugned order.