2016 (1) TMI 589 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 583 days in filing the appeal - in the RTI he was informed that the order dated 2.1.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the applicant s case was dispatched by Speed Post on 3.1.2013, but the same was returned by Postal authority on 6.1.2013 with the remarks not known and he also submitted that thereafter when it came to the knowledge of the applicant, he wrote a letter to the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) on 19.8.2014 and thereafter the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) supplied the copy of the impugned order which was received by the applicant on 25.8.2014. He submitted that the fact of the matter is that the applicant is not at fault in filing the appeal as the order was not supplied to them in time. Held that - Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 583 days in filing the appeal. COD allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 583 days in filing the appeal. The appeal was against an order-in-original dated 24.1.2012 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant claimed they were unaware of the impugned order dated 2.1.2013 until July 2014 when their agent inquired about the appeal's status. Upon receiving a copy of the order on 25.8.2014, the applicant filed the present appeal on 7.11.2014, within the statutory period. The applicant argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal, and the delay arose due to the order not being communicated to them in time. The applicant obtained information through RTI that the order was dispatched by Speed Post on 3.1.2013 but was returned by the Postal authority on 6.1.2013 with the remarks "not known." The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, condoned the delay of 583 days in filing the appeal, allowing the appeal to proceed.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely communication of orders to parties involved in legal proceedings. The applicant's argument that the delay was not their fault as they were not provided with the copy of the impugned order in a timely manner was accepted by the Tribunal. The RTI information revealing the discrepancy in the delivery of the order further supported the applicant's claim of not being at fault for the delay. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay emphasizes the principle of ensuring that parties have adequate opportunity to exercise their legal rights and remedies without being prejudiced by administrative delays or lapses in communication.

The case serves as a reminder for authorities to ensure prompt and proper communication of orders to parties involved in legal proceedings to avoid unnecessary delays and potential injustices. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in this case reflects a fair and just approach to addressing procedural issues that may arise due to administrative shortcomings. By allowing the appeal to proceed despite the delay, the Tribunal upholds the principles of natural justice and fairness in legal proceedings, safeguarding the rights of the parties involved.