1996 (4) TMI 197 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Service of order to appellant, Condonation of delay

Delay in filing appeal:
The appeal was filed without a copy of the order of adjudication passed by the Additional Collector, which was produced later. The appellant argued that they received the order late and there was no delay in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed that the copy of the order was not initially served and was provided only after repeated reminders. However, the Tribunal found that the order was communicated to the appellant through their Custom House Agents, who received the copies on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the appeal must be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order, as per the Customs Act, 1962.

Service of order to appellant:
The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Customs Act related to the service of orders and the role of Custom House Agents. It was established that the Custom House Agents of the appellant were served with the copies of the order, which should be deemed as service to the principal, i.e., the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that service of the order to the agent should be considered as service to the appellant, as the agents were acting on behalf of the appellant in submitting the necessary documents.

Condonation of delay:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, claiming that the order was not served on them directly. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellant did not contest that the order was not served on the agent, who could have then passed it on to the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that there was no sufficient ground to justify the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as belated.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely filing appeals, the legal implications of service of orders through agents, and the criteria for condonation of delay in legal proceedings. The decision underscores the need for parties to adhere to statutory timelines and procedures in legal matters to ensure fair and efficient resolution of disputes.