TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Commissionerate, Noida due to the failure of the appellant to comply with the provision of Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." 2. None appeared despite notice nor has any request for adjournment been received. As the issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass the matter is taken into consideration on the basis of records and after hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Revenue. 3. I have considered the impugned order and the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. 4. From the records and perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the appeal of the Appellant has been dismissed by observing as follows:- "6. I have gone through the contents of appeal, oral as well as written submission of the appellant. Without discussing the merit of the present case, ab-initio, I would like to discuss whether the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant within the prescribed time period. I observe that the present appeal, filed by the appellant, was received in this office on 30.09.2024 whereas the appellant has declared at Sl. No. 4 of the Appeal Me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. I observe that as per Para 8.13 of the "Statement of Facts" submitted by the appellant, along with appeal papers, it was submitted that: "The appellant subsequently received a recovery notice bearing number C. No. VIII(30) Noida Cus/Rec/Purple/30/2020/2257 dated 09.08.2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (REC), Noida Customs Commissionerate. A copy of recovery notice issued by Deputy Commissioner (REC), Noida Customs Commissionerate is enclosed in Annexure 3" 8.1 Further, Para 8.14 of the "Statement of Facts" submitted by the appellant read as under: "Upon receiving the recovery notice, the appellant become aware that a demand of INR 455343.73 along with interest and penalty has been confirmed by adjudicating authority" 8.2 Furthermore, the appellant vide their letter dated: 08.04.2025, submitted to this office as additional submissions vide their email dated 08.04.2025, informed this office that the appellant first became aware of the existence of the impugned OIO upon receipt of a notice dated 02.07.2021 (having C. No. VIII(30) Noida Cus/Rec/Purple/30/2020/2257 dated 09.08.2021 as already mentioned in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was duly received by the appellant on 16.08.2021. Thus, I observe that as per Sl. No. 4 of the Appeal Memo the declaration of the appellant that the date of communication of the decision or order is 29.07.2024 is not correct as the appellant has been communicated by the department regarding issuance of impugned order on 16.08.2021 and it was the legal responsibility on the part of the appellant after receiving communication from the department regarding the impugned order to collect the necessary documents and information and to file the appeal before the appellate authority within the prescribed time period. However, the appellant failed to do so. 9. Thus, in view of foregoing, I find that as per Sl. No. 4 of the Appeal Memo the declaration of the appellant that the date of communication of the decision or order is 29.07.2024 is not correct as the appellant has been communicated by the department regarding issuance of impugned order on 16.08.2021 whereas the appellant has filed the present appeal on 30.09.2024. In the present case, the appeal has been filed not only beyond the normal time limit of 60 days but also beyond the power of delay condonation of further 30 days....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized on certain decisions, more particularly, I.T.C.s case (supra) to contend that the High Court and this Court in appropriate cases condoned the delay on sufficient cause being shown. 10. Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps. In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay of nearly 20 months is that the appellant concern was practically closed after 1998 and it was only opened for some short period. From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of order the same was immediately handed over to the consultant for f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tant-amounts to disregarding the statutory provision. 8. In case of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. [2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.)] Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "19. Arguendo, reverting to the factual matrix of the present case, it is noticed that the respondent had asserted that it was not aware about the passing of assessment order dated 21-6-2017 although it is admitted that the same was served on the authorised representative of the respondent on 22-6-2017. The date on which the respondent became aware about the order is not expressly stated either in the application for condonation of delay filed before the appellate authority, the affidavit filed in support of the said application or for that matter, in the memo of writ petition. On the other hand, it is seen that the amount equivalent to 12.5% of the tax amount came to be deposited on 12-9-2017 for and on behalf of respondent, without filing an appeal and witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no finding has been recorded by the High Court that it was a case of violation of principles of natural justice or non-compliance of statutory requirements in any manner. Be that as it may, since the statutory period specified for filing of appeal had expired long back in August, 2017 itself and the appeal came to be filed by the respondent only on 24-9-2018, without substantiating the plea about inability to file appeal within the prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the respondent at all. 9. In view of discussions as above, I do not find any merits in the appeal. 10. Appeal is dismissed. (Dictated & pronounced in open court) Sd/- (SANJIV SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 11. After completion of the hearing and pronouncement of the decision a request for adjournment has been placed before me. However as the order has already been pronounced in the open court this request proposed after rising of the court do not needs any consideration. I also observe that this request was sent by e-mail to the Assistant Registrar, today when the matter was listed for hearing at 09:03 Hrs and not even a day in advance, stating as follows: "Due to demise of a clo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24th May, 2010 or not. Be that as it may, the ground disclosed in the letter is that, the advocate for the respondents was unwell and, therefore, could not attend the hearing on 25th May, 2010. It is to be noted that the letter was not under the signature of the advocate. It was sent by the party. In those circumstances, in the absence of any proof about the sickness of the advocate merely on statement of the party, even if the application was presented before the Tribunal on the very day, it could have been rejected for want of proof relating to the contents of the said application. There is yet another reason, as rightly pointed out by the Departmental Representative, that though in some matters the Tribunal might have acted upon the letters sent on behalf of the advocate for the assessee for adjournment, the requirement of law is that, such an application should be presented in the open Court by somebody on behalf of the assessee. Letter, if any, should be sent well in advance to the Registry so that necessary intimation in that regard can be made to the other side as also the same can be placed before the Bench in time. The learned advocate in this regard has submitted that, ev....