2017 (3) TMI 1017 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay on the ground that appellant were not aware of the impugned order till recovery proceedings were initiated by the Department - Held that - the applicant attitude of mis-declaring the address is intended for non-bonafide reason - It is an accepted principle that any person approaching the court should come with clean hands and without any hidden taint of malafide - such judicial discretion for condoning the delays are to be exercised only with reference to bonafide and equitable reasons. As already noted in the present case, the Revenue has taken adequate action to serve the impugned order. The order initially sent through post was returned with the remark no such firm . The said order was displayed in the notice board. Hence, it is not correct to accept that the order was not served in terms of Section 153 of CA, 1962 - in view of non-bonafide action of the appellant, appeal dismissed as non-maintainable - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, Service of impugned order, Condonation of delay, Misdeclaration of address by appellant.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with a misc. application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, resulting in a delay of more than 470 days in filing the appeal. The applicant claimed they were unaware of the order until recovery proceedings were initiated, and they obtained copies of the order on 14.12.2016, filing the appeal on 15.12.2016. The applicant argued the order could have been delivered to the residential address if not served at the office address.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the Department was aware of the residential address of the appellant, but the address provided by the appellant for the business was found to be non-existent. The Department's inquiry showed discrepancies in the address provided by the appellant, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the claimed address. The appellant's plea that the order could have been served at the residential address was deemed unacceptable by the Tribunal, as the order should be sent to the address declared by the applicant in official filings.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and without any malafide intentions. While acknowledging the need for substantial justice, the Tribunal found the appellant's actions to be non-bonafide and lacking reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Department had taken adequate steps to serve the impugned order, including displaying it on the notice board, leading the Tribunal to reject the application for condonation of delay and dismiss the appeal as non-maintainable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the misc. application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal due to the non-bonafide actions of the appellant regarding the misdeclaration of address and lack of reasonable cause for the delay. The judgment emphasized the need for equitable reasons and clean conduct when seeking judicial discretion for condoning delays in filing appeals.