Appellate Tribunal allows appeal delay due to lack of proof; imposes 50,000 cost on appellant

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the condonation of a 512-day delay in preferring an appeal against an order-in-original, citing lack of proof of service of the impugned order until receipt of a recovery notice in August 2018. The Tribunal distinguished cited case laws as inapplicable due to the delayed receipt. A cost of &8377;50,000 payable to the 'Prime Minister Cares Fund' within two months was imposed on the appellant, with the judgment pronounced on 11.08.2020.

---

---

Issues involved:
Delay in preferring the appeal against order-in-original dated 15.09.2017, lack of service of the impugned order, condonation of delay application, applicability of case laws in the present case.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anil Choudhary and Hon'ble Mr. C. L. Mahar, addresses the issue of a delay of 512 days in preferring the appeal against an order-in-original dated 15.09.2017. The appellant, represented by Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, argued that they were not served the impugned order and only became aware of it upon receiving a recovery notice dated 02.08.2018. The appellant claimed there was no deliberate delay in filing the appeal and emphasized the merit of their case to prevent irreparable loss. On the other hand, the Revenue's Authorized Representative, Shri Rakesh Kumar, presented a status report indicating that the impugned order was dispatched via speed post on 19.09.2017 and was not returned undelivered, suggesting service. The Revenue contended that the appellant lacked bonafide in pursuing the appeal, citing case laws to support their argument.

Upon reviewing the contentions and evidence, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had attached the recovery notice dated 02.08.2018 to the appeal paper book. Referring to Section 153(1b) of the Customs Act, which mandates acknowledgment due for dispatched notices or orders, the Tribunal noted the absence of proof of delivery such as an acknowledgment due. Consequently, the Tribunal found it plausible that the appellant did not receive the impugned order until August 2018 when they received the recovery notice. The Tribunal distinguished the case laws cited by the Revenue, noting that they were not applicable as those cases involved admitted receipt of the order within a normal timeframe, unlike the present situation.

In the interest of justice and giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay application. However, the Tribunal imposed a cost of &8377; 50,000 payable to the 'Prime Minister Cares Fund' within two months of the order or by 19.10.2020. The judgment was pronounced on 11.08.2020.

---