TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The present batch arises out of a common substratum of facts and proceedings. The three appeals have been preferred by M/s Radhey Shyam Rishipal Factory, its partner Deepak Kumar and Radhey Shyam, respectively, and arise from the same adjudication proceedings, the same Order-in-Original dated 07.12.2021 and the common order passed by the learned CESTAT. Since the questions of fact and law arising in the present appeals are substantially common, the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. To maintain brevity and avoid repetition, CUSAA 89/2026, M/s Radhey Shyam Rishipal Factory v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), is being treated as the lead matter for deciding the present batch of appeals. The facts and submissions in the lead matter are being referred to hereinafter, which shall, to the extent applicable, govern the connected matters as well. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 4. Brief facts emerging from the record, necessary for adjudication of the present appeals, are that the proceedings arise out of a Show Cause Notice dated 22.12.2020 issued to the appellants in respect of certain imports made by the appellant-firm. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccounts and supply of a copy of the Order-in-Original. 9. The appellants state that, after pursuing the matter with the Department, a copy of the Order-in-Original dated 07.12.2021 was ultimately furnished to them by the office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs by electronic mail on 02.07.2024. The appellants thereafter preferred appeals before the learned CESTAT on 01.08.2024 challenging the Order-in-Original dated 07.12.2021. 10. Since the appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, the Registry of the learned CESTAT, by communications dated 30.10.2024, required the appellants to file applications seeking condonation of delay. The appellants thereafter filed applications for condonation of delay on 20.12.2024, seeking condonation of a delay of approximately 968 days. 11. In the applications seeking condonation of delay, the appellants stated that the Order-in-Original had never been served upon them and that they had received a copy thereof only on 02.07.2024. The Respondent/Department opposed the applications and placed on record the communications/e-mails whereby the Order-in-Original had been forwarded to the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applications for condonation of delay. 16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid common order dated 07.01.2026, the appellants have preferred present appeals before this Court. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: 17. Learned counsel representing the appellants submitted that the learned CESTAT erred in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeals against the Order-in-Original dated 07.12.2021. It was submitted that the period prescribed under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 is to be reckoned from the date on which the order is communicated to the person aggrieved. According to learned counsel, the appellants had neither received the Order-in-Original at their registered address nor at their e-mail address and they became aware of the same, only upon initiation of recovery proceedings and freezing of their bank accounts on 27.02.2024. It was submitted that, despite repeated requests made thereafter, a copy of the Order-in-Original was furnished to the appellants only on 02.07.2024, whereafter the appeals were filed before the learned CESTAT on 01.08.2024. 18. Learned counsel submitted that the Department's reliance upon the e-mail dated 14.12.2021 was misplaced, as the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be disregarded merely because the appellants subsequently claimed that their counsel had not informed them of the order. 21. The learned SSC further submitted that the conduct of the appellants, viewed in its entirety, furnished no sufficient cause for condoning a delay of 968 days. The appellants were aware of the adjudication proceedings and, despite repeated opportunities, had neither filed their defence nor made any enquiry regarding the outcome of the proceedings for nearly three years. It was submitted that the subsequent receipt of a copy of the order on 02.07.2024 could not retrospectively constitute the date of its first communication when the Department had already taken steps to dispatch and electronically communicate the order in December 2021. 22. It was further submitted that the same counsel who had represented the appellants before the adjudicating authority was subsequently engaged for filing the appeals and the applications seeking condonation of delay before the learned CESTAT. The Tribunal, vide order dated 29.09.2025, specifically called upon the concerned counsel to explain why the said e-mail communication had not been disclosed in the applications for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms (Preventive), Odisha v. Satish Kumar Subudhi, decided on 17.10.2025. 26. The present appeals arise from the refusal by the learned CESTAT to condone a delay of approximately 968 days in filing the appeals against the Order-in-Original dated 07.12.2021. The question before this Court is, therefore, not whether, on a re-appreciation of the factual circumstances, another view could possibly have been taken by the learned CESTAT. The question is whether the discretion exercised by the learned CESTAT in refusing to condone the delay suffers from any error of law, perversity or disregard of material evidence so as to give rise to a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 130 of the Act. 27. Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act prescribes a period of three months for filing an appeal before the Tribunal from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated. Sub-section (5) thereof enables the Tribunal to admit an appeal after expiry of the prescribed period where it is satisfied that there was 'sufficient cause' for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. The discretion to condone delay is, therefore, required to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to explain the delay principally on the ground that the Order-in-Original dated 07.12.2021 was not communicated to them and that they obtained a copy thereof only on 02.07.2024. The Respondent/Department, on the other hand, relies upon the dispatch of the order to the address available on record, its electronic communication to the counsel representing the appellants during the adjudication proceedings and its display on the notice board. The question, therefore, is whether the material placed before the learned CESTAT disclosed sufficient cause for the appellants' failure to approach the Tribunal within the prescribed period. 31. In examining this question, the conduct of the appellants during the adjudication proceedings assumes significance. The record shows that the appellants were represented through counsel, who appeared before the adjudicating authority and sought adjournments and time to file written submissions on their behalf. Despite repeated opportunities, no reply to the Show Cause Notice was filed and the adjudication ultimately culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 07.12.2021. 32. The learned CESTAT, after examining the record of the adjudication proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the learned CESTAT the e-mail dated 14.12.2021 whereby the Order-in-Original was forwarded to the counsel who had represented the appellants before the adjudicating authority. The Department had also relied upon the dispatch of the order by post and its display on the notice board. The learned CESTAT, after considering these circumstances, recorded in paragraph 14: "The fact that the department sent the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 by e-mail on 14.12.2021 to the learned counsel has not been denied. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the repeated communications sent by the department to the appellant by post returned back either with the remark "returned due to lockdown" or "left" no fault can be attributed to the department in sending the impugned order to the learned counsel by e-mail, more particularly when the learned counsel had been responding to the e-mails sent by the Principal Commissioner during the course of the adjudicating proceedings. A copy of the order was also pasted on the Notice Board of the office and had the appellant been diligent, he would have clearly found that an order has been passed. No reason has been given by the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2024 after the Registry pointed out the delay. The Tribunal took note of this circumstance in paragraph 10 of its order and observed: "It is not in dispute that the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner was assailed before this Tribunal by filing the appeals on 01.08.2024. At the time of filing the appeals, the appellants did not even care to file an application for condonation of delay when there was a delay of about 986 days in filing the appeals and it was only when the Registry of the Tribunal pointed out this fact to the appellants that the appellants filed an application for condonation of delay on 20.12.2024. It needs to be noted that the appeals and the applications for condonation of delay were filed by the same counsel who had appeared for the appellants before the Principal Commissioner and had sent letters to the Principal Commissioner seeking adjournments and time to file a reply..." 41. The aforesaid circumstance, by itself, may not be decisive, however, it assumes significance when considered along with the other circumstances noticed by the Tribunal. The counsel to whom the Order-in-Original had been communicated by e-mail on 14.12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ress now provided by him. As noticed above, the department had been sending letter at the address on which the show cause notice was issued and it is the same address on which the impugned order was sent. The order passed by the Principal Commissioner also notices that at least one letter sent by the department at this address was received by the appellant and on basis of this letter, the learned counsel was engaged to appear before the adjudicating authority." 44. The above findings are findings of fact based upon the record before the learned CESTAT. The appellants' contention that their registered address was 308/14, Shazadabagh, whereas the Department had sent communications to 308/9, Shazadabagh, was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the latter was the address used during the adjudication proceedings, that communications had been sent there, and that the appellants had not shown that they had informed the Department of a change of address for purposes of communication. The Tribunal further noticed that the two addresses were in close proximity. 45. It is also relevant that the appellants' plea is not that they were prevented by any circumstance ....