9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to lack of knowledge about the impugned order and involvement in the seized goods; Appellant's claim of being a poor person and working under the owner of the smuggled goods; Appellant's reliance on a Tribunal ruling for condonation of delay; Revenue's opposition based on the appellant's awareness of the proceedings and previous disposal of a related appeal; Consideration of the Commissioner's recording of representation by an advocate and appellant's awareness of the proceedings; Enormous delay of 1133 days; Lack of sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay; Negligence on the part of the appellant. Analysis: The appellant filed a COD application seeking condonation of a 1133-day delay in filing the appeal, claiming lack of knowledge about the impugned order due to working under the owner of the seized goods. The appellant argued that no show cause notice was received, and awareness only came during recovery proceedings. Citing a Tribunal ruling, the appellant sought condonation based on similar reasons accepted previously. The Revenue opposed the appellant's prayer, asserting that the order was served on the appellant, who was represented by an advocate during the proceedings. The Revenue highlighted the disposal of a related appeal involving the owner of the seized goods, where penalties were confirmed. Emphasizing the significant delay, the Revenue contended that the delay should not be condoned, referencing Supreme Court judgments in support. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had recorded the appellant being represented by an advocate, indicating awareness of the proceedings. The appellant's association with the owner of the seized goods was acknowledged, with no steps taken for filing the appeal despite the related proceedings. With a substantial delay and no sufficient cause shown for condonation, the Tribunal found the negligence apparent on record. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal concluded that such an enormous delay could not be condoned, leading to the dismissal of the COD application, stay, and appeal.
|
