2012 (11) TMI 736 - AT - Customs

Condonation of Delay and stay of Impugned order - held that - As the Impugned order is an ex parte order and the appellant left for Dubai in the year 1997 and came back in 2003, therefore, they are not aware whether any show cause notice or notice of hearing was sent to their address or not, therefore, in the interest of justice, matter should go back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case - impugned order is set aside and sent the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case - appellant directed to appear before the adjudicating authority personally on or before 15th November, 2012 to fix a date for personal hearing - appeal and applications are disposed of in the above terms.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Service of impugned order, Condonation of delay, Ex parte order, Requirement of pre-deposit, Fresh adjudication, Opportunity to present case

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned order, citing non-receipt of the order which was passed in 1999 but allegedly not received until 2011. The appellant sought to set aside the ex parte order and requested a remand for fresh adjudication after being heard. The Tribunal reviewed documents indicating that the order was not served on the appellant, allowing the application for condonation of delay.

Service of Impugned Order and Condonation of Delay:
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex parte, and the appellant claimed to have been unaware of any notices due to being abroad during the relevant period. Considering this, the requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and the appeal was taken up for final disposal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for condonation of delay due to the circumstances surrounding the non-receipt of the order.

Ex Parte Order and Fresh Adjudication:
Due to the impugned order being ex parte, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to send the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. The appellant was directed to appear personally before the authority to fix a date for a hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case, setting aside the original order for a fresh adjudication process.

Conclusion:
The appeal and related applications were disposed of with the direction for the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority for further proceedings. The Tribunal's decision aimed at ensuring fairness and providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case effectively.