Valid service by registered post and statutory delay limits barred a belated customs appeal from being entertained.

A customs appeal filed 382 days late could not be entertained because the appellate authority lacked power to condone delay beyond the statutory limit. Service of the original order was treated as valid where it was sent by registered post to the recorded address and returned undelivered, especially since the party had not informed the Department of any change of address. The statutory mode of communication under section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 was therefore satisfied, and the Department was not faulted for non-service at a later address. The availability of an alternate appellate remedy, which was not used, also weighed against interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in refusing to condone a delay of 382 days in filing the customs appeal and whether service of the original order could be treated as valid when it was sent by registered post and returned undelivered.

Analysis: The appeal was filed far beyond the condonable period, and the authority was not empowered to entertain it beyond the statutory limit. The order-in-original had been despatched to the recorded address by registered post and returned undelivered. The petitioner had also failed to intimate the change of address. In those circumstances, the statutory mode of communication under section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to have been followed, and the Department could not be faulted for non-service at the new address. The Court also noted that an effective alternate appellate remedy was available but was not availed.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone the delay and the rejection of the appeal were upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---