2014 (6) TMI 228 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Delay in receipt of order - whether the receipt of order by the director is in personal capacity or on behalf of the appellant - Held that - In the affidavit filed by Director of appellant it is stated that he received order on 05. 03.2010 by hand from the CHA Section in New Custom House, Mumbai. It is also stated in the affidavit that the order was received in his personal capacity and the company has not received the order from the department at its registered address. From the letter of the department, as also from the affidavit it is clear that the impugned order was served on the appellant on 05.03.2010. The order is addressed to M/s. Interport Logistics Pvt. Ltd., CHA No. 11/1167 with direction to surrender the original CHA licence and all the Customs pass of their employees. It is a direction to the CHA and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Director of the appellant firm received the same in his personal capacity. Even when an order is sent through registered post, some Individual present in the office has to receive the order and, therefore, it does not make any difference as to who received the order - No sufficient reason to condone delay - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal based on alleged improper service of the order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a condonation of delay application citing a delay of 264 days in filing the appeal due to alleged improper service of the order.

2. The delay was attributed to the order being served on one director of the appellant firm, who did not inform the relevant personnel handling the matter, resulting in misplacement of the order.

3. The appellant argued that proper service under the Customs Act, 1962 requires sending the order through registered post to the appellant's address, citing relevant tribunal and court decisions to support their case for condoning the delay.

4. The Revenue contended that the order was duly served on the director, as evidenced by a letter directing surrender of licenses, and thus opposed the condonation of delay application.

5. The Tribunal examined the submissions from both parties and noted discrepancies in the appellant's claims regarding the order's receipt and misplacement.

6. The Tribunal found that the order was indeed served on the appellant through the director, who received it on behalf of the firm, dismissing the appellant's reliance on previous cases as not applicable to the present situation.

7. Referring to a High Court decision, the Tribunal emphasized that service methods under the Customs Act are alternative, and once service is completed through one method, further attempts are unnecessary.

8. Concluding that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay application, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as well.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the condonation of delay application based on the service of the order, emphasizing the importance of proper service under the Customs Act and the need for a satisfactory explanation for delays in filing appeals.