1984 (7) TMI 379 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in the presentation of appeal.
2. Communication of the order to the party.
3. Sufficiency of cause for not presenting the appeal within the limitation period.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in the presentation of appeal
The applicant filed an appeal seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing non-receipt of the order appealed against. The applicant argued that the appeal was filed within 3 months from the date he became aware of the order, not from the date of actual receipt. The applicant's lawyer contended that the delay was due to the time taken to study the case and prepare the appeal. However, the respondent opposed the application, emphasizing that the law only requires the order to be dispatched, and the postal endorsement proved the dispatch. The applicant failed to explain the delay between becoming aware of the order and filing the appeal, leading to the rejection of the condonation application.

Issue 2: Communication of the order to the party
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 129-A(3) of the Customs Act, which mandates filing an appeal within 3 months from the date of communication of the order appealed against. It was established that communication is deemed complete when the order is sent by registered post to the intended person or their agent. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court case to support the notion that communication occurs upon dispatch, not upon actual receipt. The Tribunal concluded that dispatching the order to the applicant's lawyer constituted sufficient communication, rejecting the argument that non-communication invalidated the appeal filing timeline.

Issue 3: Sufficiency of cause for not presenting the appeal within the limitation period
The applicant claimed to have become aware of the order on a specific date and filed the appeal within 3 months from that date. However, the Tribunal found the applicant's explanation lacking, as there was no justification for the delay between becoming aware of the order and filing the appeal. The applicant's assertion that the lawyer did not communicate the order was not substantiated with evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the applicant to explain each day's delay satisfactorily, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the importance of timely filing appeals within the stipulated period, emphasizing the need for parties to adhere to statutory timelines and provide valid justifications for any delays in legal proceedings.