2012 (8) TMI 351 - AT - Customs

Plea for condonation of delay - non-receipt of order due to alleged incorrect pin code mentioned in address - assessee contending pin code to be 110 087 instead of 110 041 - Held that - On perusal of the record, we find that the appellants themselves have given the address on their letter showing pin code as 110041. Moreover, in appeal memo also they have shown the Pin Code as 110 041 instead of 110 087. As Revenue has dispatched the orders at the given address on 30.7.98 and 29.4.2002 respectively, therefore, we hold that appellants have been served the orders properly and they have not filed the appeal in time. Applications filed for condonation of delay are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service of Orders-in-Original
2. Contention of the Appellants
3. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals

Analysis:

1. Service of Orders-in-Original:
The case involved two Orders-in-Original dated 29.7.1998 and 28.3.2002, which were challenged by the appellants. The appellants claimed they were not served these orders until 19.1.2006, leading to the filing of appeals within three months from the receipt of the orders. The Revenue, however, contended that the orders were dispatched to the appellants at the address provided by them, which was GH 13/221, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110 041. The record of dispatch was verified and found to be correct.

2. Contention of the Appellants:
The appellants rebutted the objection raised by the Revenue, stating that their correct address was GH 13/221, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110 087, and thus, the impugned orders were never served upon them. However, upon examining the record, it was revealed that the appellants themselves had previously provided the address as Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110 041 in their letter dated October 22nd, 2001, and in the appeal memo as well. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants had been properly served the orders, and thus, their appeal was not filed in time.

3. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The Tribunal, after considering the above observations, found no satisfactory reason provided by the appellants for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. As a result, the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the stay applications and appeals as well. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, highlights the issues of service of Orders-in-Original, the contention of the appellants, and the decision on the condonation of delay in filing appeals.