9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 927 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay - validity of delivery of order by speed post authorized mode of service Whether the service of a copy of the order by Speed Post, would constitute valid service under Section 153(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, or not? Held that - a person who seeks to send an article by Speed Post, does the same thing as a person who seeks to register an article does. But the transmission of the article is to be on a fast track in speed post services. There is also a tracking system provided by speed post. In other words, a registered post can be compared to an economy travel while a service through speed post can be compared to business class. Other than that, there is no distinction between two speed post considered as valid mode of communication appeal dismissed decided against appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Validity of service of order by Speed Post under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Whether proper service of order under Section 153 is a condition precedent for a valid order. 3. Commencement of the period of limitation from the date of valid service of the order-in-original. 4. Justification of authorities' conclusion on the appeal's limitation period. 5. Whether the order-in-original levying duty violates the principle of natural justice. Comprehensive Analysis: 1. The case involves an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, questioning the validity of service of an order by Speed Post. The primary issue is whether Speed Post constitutes valid service under Section 153(a) of the Act. The appellant argued that since Section 153(a) mentions only registered post and courier approved by the Commissioner of Customs, service by Speed Post is not valid. Various High Courts have differing views on this matter, with the Orissa High Court holding that Speed Post is akin to registered post and thus valid under Section 153(a). 2. Proper service of the order under Section 153 is crucial for the validity of the order. The appellant contended that the order-in-original was not validly served, leading to a delay in their knowledge of the order and subsequent appeal filing. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal as time-barred, which was upheld by the CESTAT. The issue of whether proper service is a condition precedent for a valid order is significant in determining the appeal's timeline and validity. 3. The commencement of the period of limitation from the date of valid service of the order-in-original is crucial for determining the timeliness of the appeal. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period from the date of knowledge of the order, not from the date of service. This raises the question of when the limitation period starts under Section 153 and its implications on appeal timelines. 4. The authorities, including CESTAT, concluded that the appeal was time-barred, disregarding the appellant's argument regarding the date of knowledge of the order. The issue of justification for the appeal's limitation period and the authorities' interpretation of the timeline in relation to the date of knowledge of the order is essential in assessing the procedural aspects of the case. 5. Lastly, the appellant raised concerns about the order-in-original levying duty, alleging a violation of the principle of natural justice due to pre-determination. This issue questions the legality of the duty imposition and whether due process was followed in the adjudication process. The appeal's outcome may hinge on the resolution of this issue concerning the fairness and legality of the duty imposition process.
|
