Tribunal grants appeal despite delay, doubts, and discrepancies.

The Tribunal condoned the 829-day delay in filing appeals by the appellants, considering special circumstances such as their acquittal in a criminal case and doubts about the authenticity of the delivery failure of the impugned order. Despite discrepancies in the Department's investigation and the lack of concrete evidence, the Tribunal granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants and allowed the appeals to proceed. The decision to condone the delay was based on the unique nature of the case and the appellants' claim of receiving the order late.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.
2. Authenticity of communication regarding delivery of impugned order.
3. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise passed an Order-in-Original confiscating Gold and imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants filed appeals in 2006, 829 days after the original order, citing delay due to not receiving the order promptly. The appellants claimed they were unaware of the order until the Department demanded penalty payment. The Department maintained the order was dispatched immediately via Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (R.P.A.D.). The appellants presented letters from Post Offices indicating non-delivery due to incorrect addresses, raising doubts about the authenticity of the delivery failure. The Tribunal considered the special circumstances, including the appellants' acquittal in a criminal case, and accepted their claim of receiving the order late, condoning the delay in filing the appeals.

2. During the hearing, the appellants presented letters suggesting non-delivery of the impugned order due to incorrect addresses. The Department was directed to investigate and provide an affidavit regarding the delivery status. The Department's inquiry revealed discrepancies, indicating the letter provided by the appellants was likely fabricated. Despite doubts about the authenticity of the communication, the Tribunal focused on determining if the appellants had received the order and if there were valid reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. Due to the Department's inability to produce the Acknowledgment Due card, the Tribunal granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants, considering the special circumstances and the acquittal in the criminal case.

3. The Tribunal, after thorough examination of the circumstances, decided to condone the delay of 829 days in filing the appeals, emphasizing the special nature of the case. Given the acquittal of the appellants in the criminal case and the lack of the Acknowledgment Due card, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' claim of receiving the order late and subsequently filing the appeals within a reasonable time. The Tribunal granted the COD applications, allowing the appeals to proceed despite the delay. The decision to condone the delay was based on the unique circumstances and the lack of concrete evidence regarding the delivery of the impugned order.

---