2018 (7) TMI 1608 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - non-service of copy of order - reasons adduced for seeking condonation of delay were unsubstantial or not? - Held that - It is apparent that there was some considerable laxity on the part of the respondents, who appears to have used different addresses. There is no clear material on record to show that the petitioner was communicated with the order in original and at the same time, this Court notes some laxity on the part of the appellant as well. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the appellant was denied an opportunity to have the order on merits in original adjudication. The present appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the matter is accordingly remitted to CESTAT for consideration of the appellant s appeal on its merits, on appellant depositing the amount of pre-deposit - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in receiving copy of the order from Customs Authority.
2. Rejection of belated appeal by CESTAT.
3. Appellant's contention of repeatedly requesting copy of order.
4. Consideration of evidence from previous successful appeal before Supreme Court.
5. Laxity on part of both respondents and appellant.
6. Direction for appellant to deposit specified amount for revival of appeal before CESTAT.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant's grievance was the non-receipt of the order dated 25.06.2004 from the Principal Commissioner of Customs, leading to a belated appeal rejection by CESTAT due to unsubstantial reasons for condonation of delay.
2. The record revealed that the appellant was informed of the order in 2010 but received a copy for the first time then. The appellant had corresponded with Customs Authority for the order before approaching the Tribunal in 2017.
3. The appellant highlighted previous adverse adjudication orders, followed by success at the appellate stage before the Supreme Court, emphasizing the continuity of evidence relevant to the subject matter of the current appeal.
4. The Court acknowledged laxity on the part of both respondents and the appellant. While the appellant was denied the opportunity to have the original order on merits, the Court noted the lack of clear material showing communication of the order to the appellant.
5. Despite recognizing the laxity on both sides, the Court directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within three weeks for the appeal's revival before CESTAT. This deposit was subject to adjusting a pre-deposited amount, leading to the impugned order.
6. The Court allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to CESTAT for a thorough consideration of the appellant's appeal on its merits, ensuring a fair hearing and decision in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of with the mentioned directions for the appellant's compliance and further proceedings before CESTAT.