Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 592 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing application - delay on the ground that the impugned order was not served upon the appellant and that it is lying in the file of the Department after the envelope was returned by the postal authorities - Revocation of Customs Brokers License - HELD THAT:- 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. Even otherwise, it is evident from the said application 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 filing the appeal on the basis of facts which are in his knowledge. The delay condonation application, therefore, deserves to be rejected as the appellant has not been able to satisfy that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. It is, accordingly, rejected - appeal dismissed.
|