2017 (11) TMI 1411 - AT - Customs

Tribunal dismisses appeal due to delay, emphasizing importance of diligence and procedural compliance.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal due to the significant delay in filing and lack of compelling reasons ... Condonation of delay - service under Section 153 - display on notice board as mode of service - due diligence in pursuing departmental communications - maintainability of appeal where delay is excessiveCondonation of delay - due diligence in pursuing departmental communications - maintainability of appeal where delay is excessive - Whether the delay of over 12 years in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the appellant's plea that the impugned order dated 25.06.2004 was not received and that change of address to Punjabi Bagh had been intimated to Revenue, entitling them to file the appeal within time once a certified copy was obtained. The panel observed that importers have no statutory system of registered addresses with the Department and communications rely on addresses given in transactional documents; the appellant produced only an unsigned print-out and limited postal receipts as proof of intimation of change of address. The impugned order record and Revenue's dispatch particulars, together with endorsement of return from the known Sadar Bazar address, indicate attempted service. The Tribunal accepted that the impugned order records marking a copy to the Notice Board and, although the exact date of display could not be produced after thirteen years, this fact in the order and the evidence of dispatch/return undermined the appellant's contention of non-receipt caused by departmental fault. On the facts the Tribunal was not persuaded of any mala fide or deliberate failure by the Revenue to serve the order, nor of sufficient due diligence by the appellant to establish a valid cause for excusing a delay of more than twelve years and seven months. Given the extreme length of delay and absence of corroborative proof justifying it, the discretionary relief of condonation was refused and the appeal held not maintainable. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed as not maintainable.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to condone a delay of over 12 years in filing the appeal, finding insufficient evidence of non-receipt attributable to the Revenue or of adequate due diligence by the appellant; the misc. application was dismissed and the appeal held not maintainable. Issues:Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Change of address, Compliance with Section 153, Service of order, Display in Notice BoardDelay in filing appeal:The appellant filed an appeal against an order-in-original issued in 2004 on 17.02.2017. The appellant claimed they received the certified copy of the order on 17.01.2017, within the time limit. They argued they were unaware of the proceedings and had changed their address, which was not updated by the Revenue. The appellant contended that they did not receive the letter for personal hearing or the final order, and the order was not dispatched to their updated address.Condonation of delay:The appellant sought condonation of delay, emphasizing the lack of receipt of the impugned order and the Revenue's failure to dispatch the order to the correct address. The Tribunal noted the delay of over 12 years and examined the background, considering the appellant's status as an importer without a registered address. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence of address change and service attempts by the Revenue, ultimately dismissing the application for condonation of delay due to insufficient evidence and lack of diligence by the appellant.Change of address:The appellant claimed to have changed their address from Sadar Bazar to Punjabi Bagh, informing the Revenue in 2003. They produced an unsigned printout as proof but lacked concrete evidence of notifying the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of recorded proof of address change and emphasized the importance of communication declarations made by importers for proceedings.Compliance with Section 153:The parties debated compliance with Section 153 regarding the dispatch and display of the order. The appellant contested the Revenue's actions, questioning the dispatch method and the display on the Notice Board. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented, including postal receipts and the impugned order's mention of display, ultimately finding the appellant's arguments unsubstantiated.Service of order:The appellant argued that the prescribed method of service was not followed, emphasizing the requirement of registered post with acknowledgment due. The Tribunal noted the return of the order sent to the old address and concluded that the mode of service would not have affected delivery due to the appellant's unavailability at the address.Display in Notice Board:The appellant disputed the display of the order in the Notice Board, citing a lack of evidence. The Tribunal referenced a previous court decision on service of notice, highlighting the importance of specific details. Despite the absence of the exact date of display, the Tribunal noted the evidence in the impugned order and the challenges of dealing with a 13-year-old case.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal, citing the significant delay in filing and the lack of compelling reasons provided by the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of diligence in pursuing legal matters and the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings.