1988 (1) TMI 187 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Validity of service of the impugned order.
3. Applicant's illness and its impact on the delay.
4. Applicant's diligence and bona fides in filing the appeal.
5. Legal contentions regarding service of notice and delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The applicant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal No. C. 738 of 87, which was received in the Registry on 15.6.87 against an order passed on 30-6-86 and despatched on 29-9-86. The applicant claimed that due to his illness, he was unaware of the order until April 1987. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding his illness and the period and place of treatment. The applicant's affidavit dated 20th November 1987 affirmed the statements made in the initial condonation application, which conflicted with the supplementary application. The Tribunal found these discrepancies significant and indicative of a lack of bona fides. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfactorily explained the delay and rejected the application for condonation of delay.

2. Validity of Service of the Impugned Order:
The applicant argued that the service of the order on his illiterate servant was not valid. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order was sent by registered post, a valid mode of service under Section 153 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's claim that the servant did not hand over the order. The Tribunal noted that if the servant was not authorized to receive the registered letter, the postal authorities would not have delivered it to him. The Tribunal concluded that the service of the order was valid.

3. Applicant's Illness and Its Impact on the Delay:
The applicant claimed prolonged illness from September 1986 to February 1987, preventing him from filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding the period and place of treatment. The initial application mentioned treatment in Bangalore, while the supplementary application referred to treatment at Breach Candy Hospital. The Tribunal found the applicant's varying statements unreliable and noted that the applicant was in good health by December 1986, as he traveled to Bangalore and Calcutta for business. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's illness did not satisfactorily explain the delay.

4. Applicant's Diligence and Bona Fides in Filing the Appeal:
The Tribunal questioned the applicant's diligence and bona fides, noting that the applicant did not file the appeal promptly even after allegedly learning about the order in April 1987. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had ample opportunity to inquire about the adjudication proceedings and file the appeal earlier. The Tribunal found that the applicant's actions indicated a lack of genuine intent to file the appeal within the prescribed period.

5. Legal Contentions Regarding Service of Notice and Delay:
The applicant contended that the service of the order on the servant was invalid and that the appeal filed within three months of actual knowledge of the order was within time. The Tribunal rejected this argument, citing the lack of evidence to support the applicant's claims about the servant's actions. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's varying statements undermined his credibility. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's delay was not excusable and that the service of the order was legally valid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, finding that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, had given inconsistent statements, and had not demonstrated bona fide intent to file the appeal within the prescribed period. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the service of the order and concluded that the applicant's delay was wanton and unsubstantiated.

← Previous Next →