2004 (5) TMI 464 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Delay in receiving the Order-in-Original leading to the delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant claimed that they received the impugned order on 17-1-2003 and filed the appeal on 10-4-2003 within the prescribed time. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the order dated 15-5-2002 was sent to the appellant by speed post. The Revenue contended that since the appellant did not return the order, it must have been received. However, the Counsel for the appellant had written to the Commissioner seeking information regarding any passed order and requested a copy. Despite multiple follow-ups by the appellant's Counsel, the certified copy of the Order-in-Original was only received on 17-1-2003. The delay in receiving the order was evident from the correspondence between the appellant's Counsel and the Commissioner's office.

2. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's Counsel had proactively sought information about the order from the Commissioner's office through various letters and reminders. The delay in the department's response to the appellant's requests was highlighted. The Tribunal found it perplexing that despite the appellant's Counsel's efforts to obtain a copy of the order, there was a significant delay in the department's communication. This delay in providing the necessary information to the appellant or their Counsel contributed to the delay in filing the appeal.

3. Considering the circumstances and the sequence of events, the Tribunal was inclined to accept the appellant's contention that they had not received the Order-in-Original in a timely manner. The Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was a direct consequence of the delay in receiving the order. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no delay in filing the appeal. The case was disposed of accordingly, with the appeal scheduled for a hearing on a specified date.

In summary, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi revolved around the issue of delay in receiving the Order-in-Original, which subsequently led to the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal analyzed the correspondence between the appellant's Counsel and the Commissioner's office, highlighting the proactive efforts made by the appellant to obtain a copy of the order. The Tribunal found the delay in the department's response and communication concerning the order to be unreasonable, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant due to the acknowledged delay in receiving the order.