1992 (9) TMI 222 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Dismisses Department's Appeals Over Delay and Jurisdictional Errors

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus CV. DAMODARAN

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus CV. DAMODARAN - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 453 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Delay in filing appeals by the Department against the order of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise.2. Discrepancy regarding the mode of communication of the impugned order.3. Lack of proper jurisdiction by the Collector (Appeals) in dealing with the Customs aspect of the matter.4. Absence of application for condonation of delay by the Department.Analysis:1. The Department filed appeals against the Collector's order after a delay of 400 days. The Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay, emphasizing that no application for condonation of delay was submitted. The Department argued that the time should start running from the date of receipt of the impugned order under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act. However, it was revealed that the impugned order copy was sent by ordinary post, contrary to the claim in the order that it was sent by Registered post. The Tribunal found no valid reason for condoning the significant delay and dismissed the appeals.2. The Tribunal examined the despatch Register and found evidence that the order was sent by Registered post to relevant parties, including the Advocate for the Respondents. Despite the Department's claim that the order was sent by ordinary post, no supporting evidence was presented. The Tribunal noted the presumption that a communication sent by Registered post is received by the addressee unless rebutted with evidence. As no credible evidence was provided to challenge the receipt of the order, the Tribunal rejected the Department's argument and upheld the validity of the communication.3. The Member (T) observed that the Collector (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by addressing the Customs aspect of the matter when the appeals were solely under the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal had already confirmed the findings of the Additional Collector under the Customs Act, rendering the Collector's order on the Customs aspect void ab initio. The Member highlighted the unnecessary confusion caused by the Collector's actions and emphasized the finality of the Tribunal's decision on the Customs issues.4. The Tribunal, through Member (J), and Member (T) concurred that the appeals were not maintainable due to the delay and absence of a valid reason for condonation. The lack of jurisdiction by the Collector (Appeals) in dealing with Customs matters further complicated the case. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals was based on the failure to adhere to procedural requirements and the improper handling of jurisdictional issues by the Collector (Appeals).