2007 (3) TMI 587 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of service of the Commissioner's order under Section 153 of the Customs Act.
3. Computation of the period of limitation for the appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal on 13-12-2005 against an order dated 25-5-2001, requesting condonation of a delay of 1662 days. The appellant argued that the limitation period commenced on 7-7-2005, when he became aware of the order, and thus there was a delay of 68 days. However, the Tribunal noted that the affidavit provided by the appellant's power-of-attorney holder contained factual inaccuracies and contradictory statements regarding when the appellant became aware of the order. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating there was no cogent explanation for the extensive delay.

2. Validity of Service of the Commissioner's Order under Section 153 of the Customs Act:
The appellant contended that the Commissioner's order was not served on him or his authorized agent, as he was abroad on 31-5-2001. The respondent provided evidence that the order was received by one "P.K. Saleem" at the appellant's correct address. The Tribunal held that the order was duly served under Section 153(a) of the Customs Act, which does not require service to be effected on an "authorized agent" but rather on the "agent" of the addressee. The Tribunal referenced several High Court decisions to support the view that mere dispatch by registered post constitutes valid service.

3. Computation of the Period of Limitation for the Appeal:
The Tribunal found that the impugned order was dispatched and received at the appellant's address on 31-5-2001. The appellant's argument that he was not aware of the order until 7-7-2005 was rejected. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid the penalty imposed by the order on 8-8-2003, indicating that he was aware of the order well before the claimed date. Consequently, the delay was computed from 31-5-2001, resulting in a delay of over four years and six months, which was not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay and consequently dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the service of the order was validly effected under Section 153(a) of the Customs Act and that the period of limitation commenced from the date of service, 31-5-2001.