TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not been denied by respondent No. 2. The plea of the petitioner is that the notice was sent at Panchkula, which was taken over by the Bank, and therefore, he did not receive the order of the Commissioner merits acceptance. The Tribunal on the basis of a very techni-cal approach has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation - Tribunal was not right in declining the application for condonation of delay and the said order is legally not sustainable. Consequently, the order dated 30-6-2011 qua the petitioner is quashed and the plea of the petitioner regarding the condonation of delay is accepted and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned - Delay condoned. - C.W.P. No. 1604 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2012 - Ajay Kumar Mittal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the order by the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the order when recovery proceedings were initiated against him by the custom department. He filed an appeal before the appellate authority after obtaining the copy of the order on 26-2-2010. An appeal had been filed under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 along with an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the copy of the order was sent to the erstwhile address of the company which had been taken over by the Bank and the petitioner had resigned from the company in the year 2004. Pleadings were also put forth on merits of the case regarding the non-liability of petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner had been dismissed on the ground of limitation whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal sent at that address. It was only when the recovery proceedings were initiated, that he came to know and got the copies of the orders on 26-2-2010. The Tribunal was of the view that since show cause notice was sent in February, 2007 on the same address, therefore, it did not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Another reason which impressed the Tribunal was that D.K. Sharma, another noticee in the show cause notice, who was working as Accountant at the same address, had got the impugned order and filed the appeal on 16-6-2009 and, therefore, the explanation given by the petitioner was not justified. 6. After examining the record of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation - (2010) 5 SCC 459 held that the term sufficient cause is an elastic provision and a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration has been approved. 7. Admittedly, against order dated 5-3-2009 another appeal has also been filed which is still pending and it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner s appeal is also heard on merits along with other connected appeal against the impugned order dated 5-3-2009. 8. Accordingly, keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in declining the application for condonation of delay and the said order is legally not sustainable. Consequently, the order dated 30-6-2011 qua th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
