2019 (10) TMI 1255 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation for service of order - non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Sub-section (a) of Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The Department has claimed to have issued the order-in-original on 30.11.2012. No proof has been placed on record. The order sent by speed post has not been returned as un-delivered, thus necessitating it to be displayed on the notice board as per Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962 - Following the principle of law laid down by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Camron International 2019 (7) TMI 689 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the compliance of Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962 has not been made in the present case in delivering/communicating the impugned order to the Appellant. The date of communication is considered as 09.04.2019 when the order was sent to the Appellant in response to RTI application. Consequently, the appeal is filed in time - Appeal entertained.

Summary

Issues: Compliance with Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962 in communicating the impugned order to the Appellant.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue revolved around the compliance with Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 in communicating the impugned order to the Appellant. The Registry informed that the appeal was filed approximately six years after the Appellants received the order, prompting a defect notice to produce proof of communication. The Appellants, through an RTI application, stated that they were not informed of the order until 09.04.2019. The Revenue claimed compliance by sending the order by speed post and displaying it on the notice board simultaneously. However, the Appellant argued non-compliance with Section 153, citing a case precedent from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to prove communication of the order and ruled that compliance with Section 153 had not been met. The date of communication was considered as 09.04.2019, and the appeal was deemed filed in time. Consequently, the defect was discharged, and the appeal was entertained for further proceedings.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements for communicating orders under the Customs Act, 1962. It underscores the significance of timely communication to ensure the rights of the parties involved. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the law and the application of legal principles established by higher courts. By analyzing the facts and legal arguments presented, the Tribunal concluded that the Department's actions did not align with the statutory provisions, leading to the acceptance of the appeal for further consideration. The case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations imposed on authorities in communicating orders and the consequences of non-compliance with such requirements.