TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (7) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icant. On she same day, namely, 18-8-83 a copy of the order-in-original was also sent by registered post to Shri M.G. Karmali, learned Advocate who appeared for the applicant herein before the enquiring authority. 2. In the present application the applicant stated that even upto the date of filing this application, he had not received a copy of the order which was appealed against. He came to know of the order from a letter dated 4-1-1984 received by him from the Collector of Bombay on 10-1-84 requiring him to pay the penalty. He, therefore, went to his lawyer, Shri Karmali, within a day or two after the receipt of the letter from the Collector, and from him he came to know that his lawyer had received a copy of the order sometime in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him. He took some time to study the papers and prepare and that the Tribunal should take judicial notice of these facts and condone the delay. 5. Shri C.M. Gidwani, learned S.D.R. vehemently opposed this application. He contended that all that the law requires was to despatch the order to the applicant and the communication is complete when there is proof of despatch of the order. In the instant case the postal envelope produced by the applicant itself established the despatch of the order. It is the common practice with the most of the persons involved in Customs and Excise cases not to receive any communication from the Customs and Excise. The postal endorsement was to the effect that during the time of delivery the applicant was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n (3) of Section 129-A(1) 'prescribes a limitation of 3 months for filing an appeal before the Tribunal from a decision or order passed by the Collector of Customs (which term includes Additional Collector) as an adjudicating authority. The limitation commences from the date of communication of the order appealed against. There is no dispute that the order appealed against was passed on 29-4-1983 and was despatched on 18-8-1983 by registered post. The contention of the applicant is that he had not received the order. Therefore, there is no communication. His further contention is that it is only one or two days after 10-1-1984 when he approached his Advocate, Shri Karmali, he came to know of the order and since there was no communication to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....communicated to the Government servant. It is difficult to accept the view that it is only from the date of the actual receipt by him that the order becomes effective. If that be the true meaning of communication, it would be possible for a Government servant to effectively thwart an order by avoiding receipt of it by one method or the other till after the date of his retirement, even though such an order is passed and despatched to him before such date. An officer, against whom an action is sought to be taken, thus may go away from the address given by him for service of such orders or may deliberately give a wrong address and thus prevent or delay its receipt and be able to defeat its service on him. Such a meaning of the word 'communicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of the authority competent to condone the delay. No explanation whatsoever has been set out in the application. During the hearing, the learned Advocate submitted that he took some time to prepare the appeal, and therefore, the Tribunal should take judicial notice that Advocates normally take a month to prepare the appeal. The learned Advocate also did not inform us when exactly the applicant had approached him and how much time he took to prepare the appeal memorandum. As contended by Shri Gidwani the Advocate has not chosen to file any memorandum of facts. We are unable to agree with the submissions made by Shri Gehani that the Tribunal should take judicial notice of the fact that the Ad....