2010 (3) TMI 959 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Restoration of Stay Petitions
2. Delay in filing the Appeals

Restoration of Stay Petitions:
The Applicant filed an Application for restoration of the Stay Petitions, citing a request for adjournment not considered during the hearing. The Stay Order dismissing the Stay Petitions was recalled due to the reason explained by the Applicant. The Miscellaneous Application for restoration was allowed after hearing both sides.

Delay in filing the Appeals:
The Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay in filing the Appeals, pointing out that the Appeals were filed after a considerable period from the date of the impugned Order. The Revenue provided evidence of dispatch of the impugned Order through Registered Post on a specific date. Despite this, the Applicant argued that they received the impugned Order much later and claimed they were not required to file an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents where the normal presumption is that service is deemed properly effected when a letter is sent by Registered Post. The burden of proof regarding receipt then shifts to the addressee. As the Applicant failed to provide evidence to counter the presumption of receipt, and also refused to file for condonation of delay, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's contention that the Appeals were time-barred. Consequently, the Appeals were dismissed as time-barred without delving into other issues.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of restoration of Stay Petitions and the delay in filing the Appeals as addressed in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA.