2018 (1) TMI 1358 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 989 days in filing appeal - case of appellant is that the person in charge of the imports in the appellant company had left without handing over the documents relating to the appeal to the next person who had taken charge - also the change in address was not intimated to Department - Held that - When the appellant had knowledge about the appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), it is the duty of the appellant to follow up and track the status of the appeal. The impugned order was passed on 30.07.2014. The appeal is filed only on 03.08.2017 and there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The address had not changed after 30.07.2014 and before dispatch of the order by the department. Delay cannot be condoned there being no sufficient reason - COD application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to change of address, failure to track appeal status, and lack of sufficient cause for delay.

In this case, the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 989 days in preferring the appeal, attributing the delay to the impugned order not being served at their updated address and the person in charge of imports leaving without handing over appeal documents. The appellant's counsel argued that the consultant appointed for the appeal did not inform them about the order, leading to a loss of track of the appeal. However, the department opposed the application, stating that the appellant did not explain each day's delay and failed to intimate the change of address to the department.

The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments and highlighted that it is the appellant's responsibility to track the status of the appeal, especially when aware of its pendency. The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal, which was filed three years after the impugned order. It was emphasized that the appellant did not provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay, as they did not explain each day's delay adequately. The contention regarding the change of address was deemed invalid since the appellant had not informed the department about the address change after submitting a letter in 2012. The Tribunal concluded that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay and dismissed the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay, consequently dismissing the appeal as well.

Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's duty to track the appeal status and communicate address changes to the department promptly to avoid such delays in the future.