BALAJI MARBLES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. By order passed on 6 May 2014 [: 2014 (308) E.L.T. 693 (Tribunal)] the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's application requesting condonation of delay of more than five years in filing a statutory appeal.

(2.) In the application seeking condonation of delay copy of which is at Exh. A Page-82 of the paper book, the petitioner-applicant stated that the order in original is dated 10 March 2008. The copy of the impugned order was served upon the petitioner-applicant only on 20 June 2013. They filed the appeal on 23 June 2013 which is within the statutory period of three months.

(3.) However, the registry of the Tribunal raised an objection and pointed out that the order impugned in the appeal is dated 10 March 2008. Therefore, the applicant-petitioner moved an application seeking condonation of delay. The applicant reiterated the grounds and pointed out as well that import of marble was made by the petitioner-applicant. The classification of the said product/goods was in issue and the petitioner's assertion was rejected by the department/revenue. A notice to show cause was issued on 14 September 1998. However, on 12 May 1999 the revenue/department received a letter from the petitioner/applicant informing them that the petitioner/applicant has changed the address/place of business. Yet, the adjudication order was dispatched at the old address. Therefore, postal remark "left" was endorsed on the packet. That was because the petitioner-applicant has left premises long time back. The petitioner has pointed out that the notice for personal hearing was sent at the new address. However, the copy of the adjudication order was sent at the old address and therefore, it was not aware about the passing of the adjudication order. It is only when the recovery proceedings were initiated the petitioner became aware of the adjudication order and that is how the delay occurred and there is sufficient cause for the same. In the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has relied upon Section 153 of the Customs Act. That provision reads as under:--