9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 742 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay - Principles of Natural Justice - non-service of order - appellant states that the impugned order was never served upon them, and the appellant came to know about the order when they received the recovery notice - HELD THAT - The appellant has annexed recovery notice dated 02.08.2018 as Annexure A-15 in the appeal paper book. Further, we find that Section 153(1b) of the Customs Act provides that where notice or order is despatched by registered post or speed post the same has to be under acknowledgement due. We find that Revenue has not produced the acknowledgement due as proof of delivery. Prima facie, it appears probable that the appellant did not receive the impugned order, and could know about the said order, only in August, 2018, when they received the recovery notice. In the interest of justice giving the benefit of doubt we allow this condonation of delay application subject to payment of cost of ₹ 50,000/-, which shall be payable in the Prime Minister Cares Fund . The compliance to be filed before the Tribunal within two months on receipt of this order or on or before 19.10. 2020 for reporting compliance.
Issues involved:
Delay in preferring the appeal against order-in-original dated 15.09.2017, lack of service of the impugned order, condonation of delay application, applicability of case laws in the present case. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anil Choudhary and Hon'ble Mr. C. L. Mahar, addresses the issue of a delay of 512 days in preferring the appeal against an order-in-original dated 15.09.2017. The appellant, represented by Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, argued that they were not served the impugned order and only became aware of it upon receiving a recovery notice dated 02.08.2018. The appellant claimed there was no deliberate delay in filing the appeal and emphasized the merit of their case to prevent irreparable loss. On the other hand, the Revenue's Authorized Representative, Shri Rakesh Kumar, presented a status report indicating that the impugned order was dispatched via speed post on 19.09.2017 and was not returned undelivered, suggesting service. The Revenue contended that the appellant lacked bonafide in pursuing the appeal, citing case laws to support their argument. Upon reviewing the contentions and evidence, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had attached the recovery notice dated 02.08.2018 to the appeal paper book. Referring to Section 153(1b) of the Customs Act, which mandates acknowledgment due for dispatched notices or orders, the Tribunal noted the absence of proof of delivery such as an acknowledgment due. Consequently, the Tribunal found it plausible that the appellant did not receive the impugned order until August 2018 when they received the recovery notice. The Tribunal distinguished the case laws cited by the Revenue, noting that they were not applicable as those cases involved admitted receipt of the order within a normal timeframe, unlike the present situation. In the interest of justice and giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay application. However, the Tribunal imposed a cost of &8377; 50,000 payable to the 'Prime Minister Cares Fund' within two months of the order or by 19.10.2020. The judgment was pronounced on 11.08.2020.
|
