TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2017. The Registry raised objection on delay. The appellant filed this misc. application for condonation of delay. 2. In the misc. application, the applicant stated that they received certified copy of the said impugned order only on 17.01.2017 and the present appeal filed on 17.02.2017 is well within the time limit prrescirbed. The applicant also elaborated the background of the case to submit that though the proceedings were supposed to have being completed by the impugned order, they were not aware of the same. On 2.3.2010, they received a phone call from Superintendent, Recovery Section to pay the adjudicated dues. Thereafter, the applicant has been consistently following up with the jurisdictional Customs Authorities to get a copy of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n such envelope. Further, ld. Advocate also contested the claim of the Revenue that the said order has been displayed in the notice board. He submitted that only after exhausting the requirements of Section 153 (a), the Adjudicating Authority can proceed with provisions of Section 153 (b). Further, there is no evidence of display in the notice board. 5. Ld. AR strongly contested the submissions of the applicant regarding non-compliance with the provisions of Section 153 by the Original Authority. He also submitted that the applicant did not exercise due diligence in pursuing the pending matter with Revenue. Admittedly, the appellants were having different addresses and there is no evidence to indicate that they have intimated the Departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal, is dated 25.06.04. The appeal is filed on 17.02.2017, after a gap of more than 12 years and 7 months. The plea of the appellant is mainly on the ground that they did not receive the impugned order and change of address indicated was not duly followed up for dispatching the letter by Revenue. We are aware that the Tribunal has been exercising discretion, for recorded reasons, in allowing condonation of delay in filing appeals. As a general rule, these are granted liberally. This is mainly on the principle that the appellant should not be deprived of an appellate remedy and to get an order on merit only on the ground that there was a delay in preferring the appeal. 8. While this is general principle in law, in the present appeal whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f change of address. There is no concrete recorded proof of intimation of such change of address to the Revenue. 9. Regarding the contention of the appellant that prescribed method of service of order is registered post with acknowledgement due, we note that the impugned order sent to Sadar Bazar address was returned due to non-availability of the addressee, with an endorsement of the postal authorities. The position would have remained the same where the letter was dispatched by speed post or registered post, as the appellant was not available in Sadar Bazar address at that time. Hence, without going into the merits of the contention about mode of service, we note that the Revenue could not serve the order in the known address in absence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e various assessees by the Department. The standard legal requirements are generally adopted for dispatch of these letter by registered post or by speed post etc. The appellant in the present case pleaded that Revenue intentionally continued to dispatch the letters to Sadar Bazar address when they were aware that the appellants changed the address to Punjabi Bagh. We are not fully convinced with such assertion. We could not interfere any motive or intentional act by the Revenue in dispatch of the statutory orders. In fact, the import, which is subject matter of dispute, happened in 1997. The case was finally adjudicated in 2004. The appellant did file a written reply on 28.07.2003 through their Advocate. Thereafter, personal hearing was fix....