1987 (9) TMI 171 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Receipt and service of the appellate order.
3. Validity of reasons provided for the delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Collector of Customs, Bombay, filed an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal No. C/1259/85-C. The appeal was received in the Registry on 16.7.1985, beyond the prescribed time limit which expired on 25.6.1985. The Collector attributed the delay to a paucity of staff and malfunctioning of the office photocopying machine. The Revenue argued that the limitation period should commence from when the Collector became aware of the Collector (Appeals)'s order, asserting that the order was not directly received by the Collector.

2. Receipt and Service of the Appellate Order:
The respondents contended that the impugned order had been served on the Assistant Collector, Tribunal Coordination Unit, Bombay, who acted as the agent of the Collector. They cited Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows service on the intended person or their agent. They referenced a Tribunal order in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. S.B. Plastic Industries, where it was held that receipt of the order by the Coordination Unit equated to receipt by the Collector for limitation purposes under Section 129A(3). The Tribunal noted that the date of receipt of the order by the Assistant Collector, T.C.U., should be considered the date for limitation purposes.

3. Validity of Reasons Provided for the Delay:
The Collector initially stated that the delay was due to staff shortages and photocopying machine issues. However, the respondents argued that misplacement of papers or negligence does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, citing the Tribunal's judgment in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Parker Corporation. The Tribunal observed that the Collector's reasons for the delay were unsubstantiated and that there was no sudden shortage of staff or critical need for photocopying. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Collector's statements, noting that the Collector had previously filed appeals in similar matters, indicating no need for extensive scrutiny or delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Department had not provided valid reasons for the delay and had been prevaricating in their pleas. They referenced the Supreme Court's guidelines in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. MST Katiji and Others, emphasizing that sufficient cause must be shown for condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that the delay was due to a lack of diligence by the Departmental Authorities and rejected the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.