9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal, service of the order-in-original, condonation of delay, evidence of receipt of order, compliance with Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a delay in filing, with one party claiming the order was received late, while the other party contended they had already received it. The advocate for the appellants argued that the delay should be condoned due to the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the order-in-original. The Department, represented by the Junior Departmental Representative, presented evidence suggesting that the order was dispatched and should have been received within a reasonable time frame. 2. The advocate for the appellants emphasized the lack of evidence from the Department to counter the claims made by the applicants regarding the receipt of the order-in-original. He pointed out the absence of proper service as required under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. The argument was centered on the necessity of sending the order by registered or ordinary post to ensure proper service. 3. The Department's representative contended that since one party had received the order sent by ordinary post, there was no reason why the other party should not have received it. This raised questions about the adequacy of the service and the presumption of receipt based on the method of dispatch. 4. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides, particularly focusing on the delay in filing the appeal and the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the order-in-original. The Tribunal found merit in the argument that the delay was due to postal transit issues, leading to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 5. The Department's representative relied on past decisions and presumptions regarding the receipt of documents sent by post. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of concrete evidence, such as postal receipts or proof of dispatch method, to support the presumption of receipt. The Tribunal also highlighted discrepancies in the content of the letters exchanged, emphasizing the need for proper documentation. 6. The debate continued regarding the payment made by one of the applicants for a certified copy of the order-in-original. While the Department argued that this indicated prior receipt of the order, the appellants' advocate maintained that it did not necessarily imply prior knowledge of the order. 7. Ultimately, the Tribunal gave the benefit of doubt to the applicants, considering the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the service of the order-in-original. The Tribunal emphasized the requirements under the Customs Act, 1962 for proper service of orders and decisions, leading to the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 8. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, granting relief to both parties. The Stay Petition arising from the original appeal was scheduled for further proceedings, marking the resolution of the issues related to the delay in filing and the service of the order-in-original.
|
