2018 (11) TMI 1876 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of about two days in filing the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT - The delay of two days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned and accordingly set aside the impugned order in appeal and remand the matter for decision on merits. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shall hear the appellant and decide the appeal on merits and shall also decide the issue of jurisdiction as it appears the show cause notice was never served on the appellant. The appellant is also directed to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days from the receipt of a copy of this order and seek opportunity of hearing. Both COD and appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Non-service of show cause notice on the appellant.
3. Multiple appeals filed against the same order in original.
4. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
5. Jurisdictional issue regarding the show cause notice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)
The appellant claimed that they had informed the relevant authorities about the closure of their Delhi office and provided a new correspondence address in Secunderabad. They argued that they were not served the show cause notice as it was dispatched to their old address in Ghaziabad. The delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was attributed to this non-receipt of notices at the correct address. The Tribunal considered this argument and ultimately condoned the delay of two days in filing the appeal, setting aside the previous order and remanding the matter for a decision on merits.

Issue 2: Non-service of show cause notice on the appellant
The appellant contended that they were not served the show cause notice at their correct address, leading to confusion and delays in the appeal process. They highlighted that the notice was sent to their old address in Ghaziabad, despite their communication about the closure of that office. The Tribunal acknowledged this discrepancy and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the issue of jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of proper service of notices to the appellant.

Issue 3: Multiple appeals filed against the same order in original
The Revenue department raised concerns about multiple appeals being filed against the same order in original, suggesting that the appellant might be suppressing facts. The appellant denied filing one of the appeals and claimed ignorance about it. This discrepancy raised doubts about the transparency of the appellant's actions. However, the Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue and focused on addressing the delay in filing the appeal and the non-service of notices.

Issue 4: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay of two days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's explanation regarding the non-receipt of notices at the correct address played a crucial role in this decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ensuring that the appellant had a fair opportunity to present their case and be heard on merits.

Issue 5: Jurisdictional issue regarding the show cause notice
The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the issue of jurisdiction, particularly focusing on the non-service of the show cause notice on the appellant. This aspect was deemed crucial in ensuring a fair and transparent legal process. The appellant was instructed to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a specified timeframe to seek an opportunity for a hearing and present their case effectively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay and remanded the matter for a decision on merits, emphasizing the importance of proper service of notices and ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.