2009 (1) TMI 669 - AT - Customs

Appeal - Limitation - Service of order - Held that - despatch of order/decision/summons/notice by registered post to the person concerned was held not sufficient proof of service and that there must be proof of delivery of the postal article to the addressee for compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act/Section 153 of the Customs Act

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act.
2. Validity of service of order-in-original under Section 153 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act beyond the statutory period for filing such appeal. The party claimed they received the order of the original authority after the prescribed period. The appellate authority found that copies of the order-in-original were dispatched to the party and their Customs House Agent (CHA) on 24-8-2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The appellant argued that the order was received on 7-1-08, but the postal evidence showed the dispatch and delivery of the order on the earlier date. The Tribunal considered the submissions and upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the legal requirement of timely filing appeals under Section 128.

Issue 2:
The focus of this issue was on the validity of service of the order-in-original under Section 153 of the Customs Act. The postal evidence confirmed the dispatch of the order to the appellant and their CHA on 24-8-2007, which was not disputed. The Tribunal referred to case law, including P. Bhoormal Tirupati v. Additional Collector, to establish that service by registered post constitutes legal service under Section 153. The Tribunal distinguished a contrary view in Margra Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner and followed the precedent set by the High Court and previous Tribunal decisions. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the legal principles governing service of orders under Section 153.

In conclusion, the Tribunal sustained the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the timeliness of the appeal filing and the validity of service of the order-in-original. The case law and legal interpretations supported the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with the statutory provisions and established legal principles in such matters.