9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether the appeal is time-barred. 2. Proper service of the order - Whether the order was deemed to be served on the appellants. 3. Natural justice principles - Whether the appellants were given an opportunity to explain the delay. 4. Merits of the case - Whether the order of absolute confiscation and penalty are sustainable. Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing Appeal: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to a significant delay of nearly six years in filing the appeal, which was beyond the statutory limitation period of three months under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner emphasized that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, failed on the threshold point of limitation. The appellants argued that the date of service should be considered as the date of receipt of the covering letter, but the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the statutory authorities have no power to extend the time limit beyond what is specified in the statute. 2. Proper Service of the Order: The appellants contended that the order dated 11-1-1994 was not served upon them properly, arguing that mere dispatch by Registered Post does not constitute complete service. However, the Tribunal noted that Section 153 of the Customs Act deems service by sending the order by Registered Post as proper service. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed that the order was dispatched on 1-2-1994 and acknowledged by the postal department on the same day, indicating proper service. The burden was on the appellants to prove that the order was never served, which they failed to discharge, leading to the rejection of their argument. 3. Natural Justice Principles: The appellants raised concerns about the violation of principles of natural justice, stating that they were not given an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had ample time to address the delay, as they had waited for six years before requesting a copy of the order. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' lack of interest in the proceedings was evident from their delayed actions and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Merits of the Case: Lastly, the appellants argued that the order of absolute confiscation of gold bars and the imposed penalty were not sustainable. They claimed to have a strong case on merits. However, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case as the primary issue of the appeal being time-barred was decisive. The Tribunal dismissed the stay application and appeal, affirming that the appeal was not maintainable due to the delay in filing beyond the statutory limitation period.
|
