9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the delay on showing the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom v. Bhargavi Amma [ 2008 (7) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT ] has laid down that the words sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words sufficient cause in Section 5 of Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or neg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department. Thereafter, the Revenue has also called for report from the concerned department and the said report in the form of communication dated 30.8.2019 was placed on record by the learned Authorised Representative during the course of hearing on 7.1.2020. I have gone through the affidavit of the applicant as well as the communication dated 30.8.2019 produced by the revenue and heard the rival submissions. The complete affidavit of the applicant is extracted as under:- 1. Shri Lalit Ganatra, Indian inhabiting having office at 702, Krusal Commercial Complex, Above Shopper Shop, Chembur West, Mumbai-400 089 solemnly affirm here as under: 1. That the DRI issued Show Cause Notice F. No. DRI/BZU/E/01/2004 dated 27th December, 2004 callin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms on 16.11.2017 informing him that the OIO mentioned in the said letter had not been received by me and requested him to send me certified copy of the OIO to take further action in the matter. 7. That in response to my letter dated 16.11.2017, I received an office copy of a letter dated 10.11.2012 issued on 20.11.2012 from Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Tax Recovery Cell(X) for recovery of dues (₹ 5,00,000/-) along with OIO No. CAO/No. 73/2005 dated 22.06.2005 on 26.07.2018 by hand. 8. That I had not received either the said letter dated 10.11.2012 or the said Order-in-Original dated 22.06.2005 delivered to me by hand by a Custom Officer of Recovery Cell. 9. That on receipt of the said order on 26.07.2018, I immediately contacte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged address then how can they send the communication after 12 years on the said changed address. No justification/explanation has been given about it by the learned Authorised Representative. As per the affidavit of the applicant, after the request made by the applicant, the certified copy of the impugned order was served on the applicant by hand on 26.7.2018 by a custom officer of Recovery Cell. There is no denial in the communication dated 30.8.2019 placed on record by Revenue, about the aforesaid date of service of the impugned order by the department on the applicant. Thereafter as per the case records, the appeal has been filed by the applicant immediately on 26.7.2018 with the instant application. No doubt the Tribunal can condone the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
