Customs Appeal No. 95 of 2014. Case: New Drug & Chemical Co. Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Customs Appeal No. 95 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Pathak, Adv. and For Respondent: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Adv. |
| Judges | B.R. Gavai and A.S. Gadkari, JJ. |
| Issue | Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 153(a), 153, 129A |
| Citation | 2015 (325) ELT 313 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | March 23, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
The Appeal challenges the order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 29th April, 2014 thereby dismissing the application filed by the present appellant for condonation of delay in challenging the order dated 29th August, 2007.
-
The appeal is taken up for hearing finally.
-
The facts in the present case are as under:
The appellant has imported Bronopol between May, 2004 to January, 2007. A show cause notice came to be issued to the appellant on 11th April, 2007. The appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice on 24th April, 2007. Addendum to show cause notice came to be issued on 9th May, 2007. The appellant filed a further reply on 12th June, 2007. The personal hearing was attended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant which was held on 4th July, 2007. It is the contention of the appellant that though an order-in-original came to be passed in August, 2007, the appellant was not served with the copy of the order and he came to know about passing of the order dated 29th August, 2007 only after he was served with recovery notice. In this background, the appellant immediately preferred an appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. By the impugned order the application for condonation of delay came to be rejected. Hence, the present appeal.
-
Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was never served with an order-in-original passed by the authority. However, after coming to know about the said order when he applied for a copy of the same upon receipt of the recovery notice, he immediately obtained a copy and filed an appeal. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no deliberate or wilful delay on the part of the appellant. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, when the appellant was before the original authority, there is no reason as to why he would not have filed an appeal within the prescribed period. He, therefore, submits that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed.
-
Mr. Jetly, on the contrary submits that since the order was served by affixing it on the notice board of the Customs House, the service was in accordance with law and as such, the appeal ought to have been filed within the prescribed period.
-
After hearing the rival parties, we find that the following questions of law arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial