9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication that the appellant was aware on August 17, 2016 that an order had been passed on March 15, 2016 by the Commissioner after the personal hearing was conducted on March 8, 2016. Thus, when the appellant, even according to his own statement, was aware that an order had been passed on March 15, 2016, then the appellant should have taken immediate steps to obtain the order so that the appeal could be filed within the three months from the said date, but as it transpires the appeal was actually filed on October 25, 2019 after a period of almost three years and two months. It is apparent that the appellant was not interested in pursuaning the matter and infact it was only in 2019, and that too after the period for which the licence was granted expired on November 10, 2017, that this appeal was presented. The request made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant for inspection of the records produced by the Department was not accepted for the reason that the learned Counsel for the appellant wanted to conduct a roving enquiry - it has been found that the file does not contain the original order sent to the appellant. It is for the appellant to explain the delay in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the statutory period, if this period of non supply/communication, till the appellant was handed over a copy of that order, is not taken into account, is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the above mentioned reason. In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that delay, if any, in filing the said appeal may kindly be condoned and for any other order as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the appellant. 4. In view of the averment made in paragraph 2 of the application that the impugned order was not served upon the appellant and that the order was lying in the file of the Department after return by the postal authorities, an order was passed by the Bench on January 14, 2020 that the dispatch record relating to this order should be checked by the Department. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the Bench, a communication dated January 27, 2020 was sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the learned Authorised Representative of the Department to inform that the order dated March 15, 2016 was delivered to the appellant by speed post by consignment No E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016, duly acknowledged by the department could not be filed along with the present appeal, since the same was not traceable to the appellant at that point of time. In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that delay, if any, in filing the said appeal may kindly be condoned, while looking into appellant s aforementioned application dated 17.08.2016 and/or any other order as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the appellant. 9. Shri Ashutosh Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order dated March 15, 2016 was never served upon the appellant and in fact only a photo copy was provided to the appellant much after he had submitted the application dated August 17, 2016 in the Department to inform about the non-supply of the original order. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that since the envelope containing the order was never served upon the appellant and it is in the file of the Department, the delay if any, in filing the appeal is not deliberate and a lenient view should be taken. Learned counsel also submitted that permission may be granted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order in original nor does it state as to when the copy of the order that has been enclosed with the appeal was actually given to him. 15. Under section 129A(3) of the Customs Act 1962 [Customs Act ], every appeal has to be filed within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the party preferring the appeal. It was, therefore, imperative for the appellant to have specifically stated the date on which the order was communicated to the appellant. Even in the short synopsis filed by the appellant at the time of hearing of the delay condonation application, the appellant has not disclosed the date on which the order was communicated to him and all that has been stated is that he was given a photocopy of the impugned order much after he had handed over the application dated August 17, 2016 to the concerned official. 16. It has also been stated in the short synopsis that the appellant had handed over an application dated 17.08.2016 to the concerned official mentioning about the non supply of the impugned order and that the said application could not be filed with the appeal since the same was not traceable at that time. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner to the Customs Brokers and require the Customs Broker to submit, within a specified period of not the less than 30 days, any representation that he may wish to make against the said report. It is thereafter that under regulation 20(7) of the 2013 Regulations that the Commissioner of Customs, after considering report of the enquiry and the representation passes such an order as he thinks fit either revoking the suspension of the licence or revoking the licence within ninety days from the date of the submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner. 21. The record reveals that after the license of the appellant was suspended by order dated July 18, 2014, a show cause notice was issued and personal hearing was fixed for February 25, 2016. On that date Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, appeared before the Commissioner (Customs) and moved an application seeking adjournment as the learned Senior Counsel who was to argue the matter was out of station. The order sheet further reveals that the hearing was adjourned to March 02, 2016. On that date, Ramvir appeared and submitted his objections. He was also heard and the order sheet contains his signatures. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
