2025 (2) TMI 969 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing the second appeal - misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported Brass Ceramic Cartridges - HELD THAT - Admittedly the Appellant had preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and had engaged the said counsel. The notice for personal hearing was served upon the Appellant as also the Counsel as is evident from the notice dated 08th January 2020. The Counsel had also attended the hearing. There was no other alternative address which the Appellant provided to the Commissioner (Appeals) for service of the order dated 1st June 2020. Under such circumstances the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be blamed for having sent the order to the earlier address of the Appellant. There has been clear lack of alacrity on behalf of the Appellant who has not bothered to verify as to whether any order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal preferred at its instance. This Court is of the opinion that the duty existed also upon the Appellant to check if any order was passed in the appeal. In the overall facts and circumstances the Department did not have any other option and has exercised its due diligence in accordance with the procedure. As the Appellant did not provide an alternate address and the Counsel failed to inform the Appellant the Department cannot be held responsible. Conclusion - The Department had fulfilled its obligations and the appellant s lack of diligence contributed to the dismissal of the appeal. The order of CESTAT does not warrant any interference - Appela dismissed.

Summary

The present case involves an appeal filed by M/s Techmax Electronics challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) decision not to condone the delay in filing a second appeal. The appellant had imported Brass Ceramic Cartridges from China, faced allegations of misdeclaration and undervaluation, resulting in a differential duty assessment, redemption fine, and penalty. The appellant cleared the goods to avoid demurrage and detention charges. The appeal process was complicated by the appellant's relocation, a fire accident at the new premises, and subsequent delays in communication and filing. The key issue revolved around the delay in filing the appeal before CESTAT and whether the reasons presented by the appellant justified condonation of the delay.The Court analyzed the sequence of events leading to the delay, including the appellant's failure to update the department on their change of address, lack of communication regarding the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the timeline for filing the appeal. The Court noted the appellant's negligence in staying informed about the proceedings and the order, despite attending the hearing. The Court also considered the argument that the limitation for filing the appeal should run from the date of communication of the order, emphasizing the appellant's responsibility to ensure receipt of such communications.The Court rejected the appellant's arguments, emphasizing that the appellant failed to provide an alternative address for communication, did not verify the status of the appeal order, and did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for condonation of the delay. The Court held that the Department had fulfilled its obligations, and the appellant's lack of diligence contributed to the dismissal of the appeal. Ultimately, the Court upheld CESTAT's decision and dismissed the appeal.In summary, the Court's analysis focused on the appellant's responsibility to stay informed about the appeal proceedings, the impact of the appellant's negligence on the delay in filing the appeal, and the Department's fulfillment of its duties in the communication process. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of diligence and timely action in legal proceedings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal in this case.