2015 (12) TMI 650 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - inordinate delay of 603 days - Held that - undisputedly, Dr. Kameswar Mishra had been appointed by the applicant to present his case before the ld. adjudicating authority. It is not in dispute that Dr. Mishra had received the impugned Order on 22-1-2012 and made an attempt to communicate the same on 3-4-2012. However, due to absence of the applicant in Indore, the impugned Order sent by Registered Post by Dr. Mishra, was returned, and there was no scope for Dr. Mishra to get in touch with the applicant in filing the appeal. On going through the application and also the affidavits filed by the applicant and his advocate, Dr. Kameswar Mishra, we are of the view that the applicant could not file the appeal in time, not because of his negligence, nor due to lack of bona fideness on his part, but the circumstances were beyond his control. In the result, in the interest of justice, the delay caused in filing the appeal before this Forum deserves to be condoned - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal before the Forum.

Analysis:
The application sought condonation of a 603-day delay in filing the appeal. The advocate for the applicant explained that the applicant, who was the owner-cum-driver of the confiscated vehicle, was away from Indore in search of livelihood when the Order was communicated. The advocate attempted to inform the applicant in April 2012 via registered post, but as the applicant was unreachable, the communication was returned undelivered. The applicant only received the Adjudication Order in November 2013, leading to the appeal being filed on 16-12-2013. It was emphasized that the delay was unintentional and bona fide due to the applicant's illiteracy and lack of knowledge in legal matters.

The Revenue's representative raised concerns about the lack of specific details to verify the applicant's absence from Indore during the relevant period. After hearing both sides and examining the records, it was established that the advocate appointed by the applicant had received the Order on 22-1-2012 and attempted to communicate it on 3-4-2012. However, due to the applicant's absence, the communication was returned, making it impossible for the advocate to reach the applicant for filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after reviewing the application and affidavits, concluded that the delay was not due to negligence or lack of good faith on the applicant's part but was a result of circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and allowed the application.