2008 (1) TMI 118 - AT - Customs

Application for condoning the delay of almost 10 years - Contention of appellant is that impugned order(passed on 18-9-97) was never served upon applicant, they came to know about adjudication order when recovery proceedings were started - as adjudication order was affixed on the notice board of Customs House u/s153 so, we find no merit in this appeal - shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal with the period of limitation not shown - COD applications are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals due to non-service of adjudication order.

Analysis:
The applicants filed applications for condoning a delay of almost 10 years in filing appeals against an impugned order passed on 18-9-97 but filed on 3rd October, 2007. The contention was that the impugned order was never served upon the applicants, and they only became aware of it in 2006 during recovery proceedings. The applicants approached the High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed, suggesting that the applicants were aware of the orders for recovery and had legal remedies available. The request for recalling the order was rejected by the adjudication authority, leading to subsequent dismissals by the High Court.

The applicants argued that they were unaware of the adjudication order until the revenue filed a counter affidavit in the High Court. They claimed sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the limitation period, citing decisions from the Bombay High Court and the Tribunal in support. The revenue contended that they followed the prescribed mode of service under Section 153 of the Customs Act, sending the order by registered post and affixing it on the Customs House notice board when unable to serve through post. The revenue's version was not disputed by the applicants before the High Court.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed in 1997, and appeals were filed in 2007, solely based on the contention that the adjudication order was never served upon the applicants. The Tribunal noted that the order was sent via registered post but could not be served, leading to affixing it on the Customs House notice board as per Section 153 of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue before the Larger Bench was different from the present case, as it focused on the sufficiency of service through the post office. In the case cited by the applicants, there was no dispute regarding the date of service, and the limitation period started from the date of service. As the adjudication order was affixed on the Customs House notice board, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's contention of showing sufficient cause for the delayed appeal filing. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay, stay applications, and appeals were dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of delay in filing appeals due to non-service of the adjudication order and provides a comprehensive understanding of the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.