JAIN INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PREVENTIVE), SHILLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE Applicant filed this Application for restoration of the Stay Petitions on the ground that on the date fixed for hearing of the Stay Petitions, the Applicant made a request for adjournment, which was not taken into consideration. In view of the reason explained, the Stay Order dated 9 -4 -2009 dismissing the Stay Petitions is recalled. The Miscellaneous Application is allowed.

(3.) THE Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding delay in filing the Appeals. Contention of the Revenue is that a common impugned Order was passed on 23 -8 -2007 in these cases, and the Appeals were filed on 10 -11 -2008. On the last date of hearing, the Revenue was directed to produce evidence regarding dispatch of the impugned Order. Today, the Revenue produced a relevant copy of the Dispatch Register dated 5 -12 -2007, which shows that the impugned Order was sent through Registered Post on 5 -12 -2007. In spite of this, the Applicant insisted that they are not required to file any application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals, as the impugned Order was received by them on 24 -9 -2008. As the Revenue has produced evidence regarding dispatch of the impugned Order through Registered Post on 5 -12 -2007, therefore the presumption is that the same had been received by the Applicant and the same is not controverted by the Applicant. Further, we find that the Honble Madras High Court in the case of P. Bhoormal, Tirupati v. CC reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 65 held that normal presumption is, unless the contrary is proved, service shall be deemed to have been properly effected when a letter properly addressed, is pre -paid and sent by Registered Post. The Honble High Court, Delhi in the case of Neha Cosmetics v. CC, vide Order dated 29 -11 -2006 [2007 (208) E.L.T. 494 (Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 241 (Del.)] (held that sender will have to show that the notice was, in fact, sent by Registered Post to the addressee. The burden, thereafter, would be on the addressee to show that such letter was not in fact received. The Applicant is also not willing to file any application for condonation of delay. In these circumstances, we find merit in the contention of the Revenue that the Appeals are time -barred. As the Appeals are time -barred, therefore without going into other issues, the Appeals are dismissed as time -barred.