2005 (1) TMI 292 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals against the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) order.

Analysis:
1. The applicants filed COD applications seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals against the Commissioner's order. They claimed not to have received the order as it was dispatched to an address they had shifted from. The applicants received the order in 2004 through a letter from Customs, prompting them to file the COD applications.

2. The applicants argued that the Customs House had their correct address, as evidenced by their letters and the issuance of a PAN based IE Code. They contended that they could not file the appeal on time due to not receiving the original order. They collected the order in 2004 and stated they did not receive the show cause notice either.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) countered, stating that the applicants had not informed the department of any address change. He presented evidence of registered letters sent to the address provided by the applicants. The DR argued that the Customs House was not aware of any address change as there was no communication from the applicants. He relied on a Madras High Court decision regarding service by registered post under Section 153 of the Customs Act.

4. The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and arguments, found the reasons given by the applicants for delay not valid. They concluded that Section 153 of the Customs Act was complied with in serving the order, and the service was valid as per the Madras High Court decision. Therefore, the Tribunal did not see sufficient grounds to condone the two-year delay in filing the appeals.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the COD applications for condonation of delay along with the appeals as they were time-barred, as pronounced in the operative part of the judgment.