2018 (2) TMI 585 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay of 3136 days in filing the appeal - delay on the ground of non-service of notice - Held that - it is for the department to establish that the order has been served upon the appellants. Though the dispatch document is showing the dispatch of the Order-in-Original as furnished by both sides we do not find any evidence establishing that the copy of the order has been served upon the appellants - delay cannot be condoned - COD dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, service of impugned order, grounds for condoning delay, establishment of service of order, cost to be deposited by the appellants.

Analysis:
The appellants filed applications seeking condonation of a delay of 3136 days in filing appeals, claiming they were unaware of the Order-in-Original dated 16.1.2008 until receiving a penalty notice in 2016. The appellants argued that the order was not served on them, citing a Supreme Court judgment supporting their stance. The department, represented by the ld. AR, opposed the applications, contending that the order was served as evidenced by the dispatch register. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence proving the order was served on the appellants, emphasizing the lack of acknowledgment due for the speed post. Consequently, the Tribunal found grounds to condone the delay due to the appellants' lack of awareness of the impugned order. However, considering the significant delay, the appellants were directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 10,000 each to the respondents within a month, with non-compliance leading to dismissal of the applications and appeals.

This judgment delves into the crucial issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals, emphasizing the necessity for the department to establish the service of the impugned order on the appellants. The Tribunal highlighted the appellants' assertion of non-receipt of the order and the absence of concrete evidence proving service, ultimately leading to a decision in favor of condoning the delay. The reference to legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment and a High Court ruling, added weight to the arguments presented by both sides. Additionally, the Tribunal's directive for the appellants to deposit a specified cost within a stipulated timeframe underscored the need to balance leniency with accountability in cases involving significant delays in filing appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai addressed the complex issue of condonation of delay in filing appeals, highlighting the importance of establishing the service of orders and balancing leniency with accountability. The detailed analysis provided insights into the arguments presented by the appellants and the department, culminating in a decision that considered the circumstances while imposing a cost on the appellants for the delay. This case serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and consequences associated with delays in filing appeals before tribunals.