2017 (11) TMI 1411 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay on the ground that they did not receive the impugned order and change of address indicated was not duly followed up for dispatching the letter by Revenue - Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 153 - service of order - change of address - Held that - the appellant in the present case is an importer. Unlike the assessee for Central Excise and Service Tax, the importers are not required to register their address etc. with the Department. In other words, there is no registered address as an assessee with the department. The declarations made in the bill of entry and thereafter any correspondence will be considered by the officers for communicating with the importer in any proceedings. In the present case, the dispatch of the impugned order to the known address of the appellant and its return have been evidenced and recorded in the written submissions of Revenue. The display in the Notice Board is evidenced in the impugned order, wherein copy was marked to the Notice Board also. While we note that the Revenue could not produce the details of the exact date of display, we also take note that we are dealing with 13 years old case. Here, it is necessary to note that large number of communications in the form of notices, orders were sent to the various assessees by the Department. The standard legal requirements are generally adopted for dispatch of these letter by registered post or by speed post etc. The appeal has been filed after more than 12 years after issue of the impugned order. We are not convinced with the submissions made by the appellant - application dismissed - appeal also dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Change of address, Compliance with Section 153, Service of order, Display in Notice Board

Delay in filing appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order-in-original issued in 2004 on 17.02.2017. The appellant claimed they received the certified copy of the order on 17.01.2017, within the time limit. They argued they were unaware of the proceedings and had changed their address, which was not updated by the Revenue. The appellant contended that they did not receive the letter for personal hearing or the final order, and the order was not dispatched to their updated address.

Condonation of delay:
The appellant sought condonation of delay, emphasizing the lack of receipt of the impugned order and the Revenue's failure to dispatch the order to the correct address. The Tribunal noted the delay of over 12 years and examined the background, considering the appellant's status as an importer without a registered address. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence of address change and service attempts by the Revenue, ultimately dismissing the application for condonation of delay due to insufficient evidence and lack of diligence by the appellant.

Change of address:
The appellant claimed to have changed their address from Sadar Bazar to Punjabi Bagh, informing the Revenue in 2003. They produced an unsigned printout as proof but lacked concrete evidence of notifying the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of recorded proof of address change and emphasized the importance of communication declarations made by importers for proceedings.

Compliance with Section 153:
The parties debated compliance with Section 153 regarding the dispatch and display of the order. The appellant contested the Revenue's actions, questioning the dispatch method and the display on the Notice Board. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented, including postal receipts and the impugned order's mention of display, ultimately finding the appellant's arguments unsubstantiated.

Service of order:
The appellant argued that the prescribed method of service was not followed, emphasizing the requirement of registered post with acknowledgment due. The Tribunal noted the return of the order sent to the old address and concluded that the mode of service would not have affected delivery due to the appellant's unavailability at the address.

Display in Notice Board:
The appellant disputed the display of the order in the Notice Board, citing a lack of evidence. The Tribunal referenced a previous court decision on service of notice, highlighting the importance of specific details. Despite the absence of the exact date of display, the Tribunal noted the evidence in the impugned order and the challenges of dealing with a 13-year-old case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal, citing the significant delay in filing and the lack of compelling reasons provided by the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of diligence in pursuing legal matters and the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings.