2013 (8) TMI 358 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay assessee gave the reason that they did not receive order in original at the given address - Held that - there was no reason to accept that order in original was not received - the order were returned undelivered but the order in original sent to known postal address was not returned undelivered - The address was the same what was mentioned in the COD application the delay in number of days in filing each appeal had not been specified in the applications. The medical prescriptions relied upon by the appellant in respect of condonation of delay are of no help to the appellant because nowhere in these documents it is coming out that at any time appellant was admitted in hospital for a longer period and was bet ridden appeal decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals due to non-receipt of original orders, condonation of delay application based on medical reasons, applicability of case laws for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed COD applications citing non-receipt of original orders as the reason for the delay in filing appeals. The advocate argued that the orders meant for certain individuals were returned undelivered by postal authorities, justifying the delay. However, the A.R. contended that the reasons provided were sketchy and unsubstantiated, urging for the rejection of the COD applications.

2. The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing each appeal was not specified in the applications. Upon examining the dates of filing appeals, it was observed that for some appellants, the original orders sent to their known postal addresses were returned undelivered, leading to the conclusion that there was no delay in those cases. The delay in one appellant's case was condoned accordingly.

3. In the case of M/s. Wireless Communications, the Tribunal found that the original order was not returned undelivered to the known postal address. The medical reasons presented for the delay were deemed insufficient as there was no evidence of prolonged hospitalization. The case laws cited by the appellant were deemed inapplicable as the situations differed from the present case, leading to the rejection of the COD application.

4. The Tribunal further clarified that the case laws cited, namely M/s. Allianz Steel Limited and M/s. Ashok & Co. Pan Bahar Limited, did not align with the circumstances of the current case. As a result, the COD application filed by M/s. Wireless Communications was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the stay petition and appeal due to limitation.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the COD application of M/s. Wireless Communications based on the lack of substantial reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the importance of providing sufficient and valid justifications for condonation of delay in legal proceedings.

Judgment:
The COD application filed by M/s. Wireless Communications was rejected, and consequently, the stay petition and appeal were dismissed due to limitation.