2015 (9) TMI 1255 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - Delay of 152 days - Delay in receipt of order - Held that - postal authorities have despatched the said OIO on 10.7.2013 and the date of service of impugned order is established. The appellant stated in their COD applications that they received the order only on 19.12.2013 and the same is not supported with any evidence. In the absence of any contrary evidence by appellant, there is no justification for condoning the delay of 152 days. We find that on an identical issue of service of order, the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanumal Glass Works Vs CCE Kanpur (2012 (12) TMI 96 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) has rejected the plea that unless order is received by assessee in person, it cannot be treated to be communicated to him - The ratio of the Hon ble High Court is squarely applicable to this case and the delay of 152 days not justified and cannot be condoned - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, service of impugned order, justification for condoning delay.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with three COD applications filed with a delay of 152 days in filing respective appeals arising from a common OIA. The appellant failed to appear on multiple occasions, and the Revenue submitted evidence of the date of service of the impugned order. The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by the Revenue, including the extract of the date of despatch and postal receipts, which established the date of service as 10.7.2013. The appellant claimed to have received the order on 19.12.2013 but failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court to reject the plea that the order must be received by the assessee in person to be considered communicated. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of communication of orders to authorized agents as per relevant legal provisions.

The judgment further discussed the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which governs the service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. The Tribunal highlighted that communication of the order to the authorized agent, in this case, the appellant's counsel, was sufficient as per the law. The judgment also referred to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, specifically Rule 13, which mandates attaching documents authorizing representatives to the memorandum of appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the execution of a vakalatnama by a legal practitioner serves as authorization under the Rules. Additionally, Rule 35 of the 1982 Rules requires orders to be communicated to parties either in person or by registered post.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no substantial question of law for consideration and dismissed the appeals along with the COD applications as time-barred. The judgment reiterated the applicability of the Hon'ble High Court's decision to the case at hand, emphasizing that the delay of 152 days was not justified and could not be condoned. As a result, all three appeals were dismissed due to being time-barred.