Deepak Nitrite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.)

Deepak Nitrite Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Adj.)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 13, 2005

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/37759

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/37759
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice, A M Moheb
Decided On: Jan 13, 2005
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deepak Nitrite Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs (Adj.)

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(191)ELT597Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....notice issued before the matter was adjudicated was not replied to by the applicants. under section 153 of the customs act, the procedure, which constitutes, service is clearly laid down.the customs house has acted in accordance with the provisions of section 153. he relied on the decision of the madras high court in p.bhoormal tirupati v. acc, madras [2000 (126) elt 65 (mad.)] wherein the hon'ble high court held service by registered post is a valid service under section 153 of the customs act. the court held that unless the contrary is proved, service shall be deemed to have been properly effected when a letter properly addressed, pre-paid and posted by registered post, constitutes service under section 153 of the customs act. the court also held that an endorsement stating "left" was not sufficient to prove the contrary. an appeal filed two years after the date of communication of the order of the commissioner cannot be entertained by condoning the delay when the impugned order was despatched to the known address of the applicants. he further staled that the applicants could not produce any communication to the customs house denoting that they had shifted from the premises indicated in the bills of entry or in the correspondence entered into. he, therefore, strongly pleaded that the application for condonation of delay should be rejected as it is not made on legal grounds.4. after perusing the records and hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that the reasons given by the applicants for condonation of delay are not valid. we find that the provisions of section 153 of the customs act have been duly complied with when the service of the order was made. we also observe that the service of the order is valid in terms of the decision of the madras high court. we, therefore, do not see sufficient reason to condone the delay of two years in filing the appeals.5. the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed along with the appeals as time barred.

Full Judgment

1. These two COD applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, are taken up for consideration. In the order dated 31.8.2000, the Commissioner adjudicated the cases by a common order. The records show that the impugned order was despatched to the applicants' address, i.e. Deepak Nitrite Ltd., Nitro Aromatics Division, Shiv Shakti, B.G. Kher Road, Worli, Bombay. The applicants' contention is that they have not received the order as they shifted from the above said premises. The applicants state that they received the copy of the impugned order only on 12.8.2004 when they received a letter from the Customs in Form Appendix I dated 30.7.2004 signed by one Shri M.L. Meena, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, asking the applicants to take early steps to realise the amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act and the Customs (Attachment of the Property of the Defaulters or Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995. The COD applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals on the ground that the impugned order was never received by them as it was sent to an address which no more belonged to them at the relevant time.

2. It was pleaded by the applicants that the Customs House was aware of their correct address as evident from their letters dated 17.7.1998 and 24.7.1998 which show the applicants' correct address as Nitro Aromatics, Takshashila, 1^st floor, Madhavdas Pasta Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai. It is also stated that in the year 2000, PAN based IE Code was issued for incorporating the same into the EDI system and hence the applicants had requested for updatation along with PAN number and accordingly an IE Code was issued by the Joint DGFT, Mumbai on 18.10.2000. PAN based IE Code has interconnectivity with the Customs ports and hence the Customs is aware about all the details mentioned in the IE Code. A 15-digit business identification number has been allotted by the Customs which also shows the correct address. It is the contention of the applicants that they could not file appeal in time as they did not receive order-in-original dated 31.8.2000. They collected the said order from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (EP), Group VII, Mumbai, on 12.8.2004. They also stated by an affidavit that they did not receive the show cause notice for the same reason. Hence it is pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the stay application filed by them against the said order of the Commissioner be taken up.

3. The learned DR stated that the applicants, while importing the goods under value based advance licences, had given the address as indicated in the order-in-original. They had never communicated the change of address to the department. He produced the relevant extracts from the department to indicate that registered letters have been sent to the address given. He contended that the applicants' contention that the Customs House was aware of the change of address because the DGFT had informed the change of address and because a separate IE Code was given to them after PAN based IE Code system was introduced by the Joint DGFT, Mumbai, is not correct in the absence of any communication from the applicants to the Customs House informing the change in their address. The show cause notice issued before the matter was adjudicated was not replied to by the applicants. Under Section 153 of the Customs Act, the procedure, which constitutes, service is clearly laid down.

The Customs House has acted in accordance with the provisions of Section 153. He relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in P.Bhoormal Tirupati v. ACC, Madras [2000 (126) ELT 65 (Mad.)] wherein the Hon'ble High Court held service by registered post is a valid service under Section 153 of the Customs Act. The Court held that unless the contrary is proved, service shall be deemed to have been properly effected when a letter properly addressed, pre-paid and posted by registered post, constitutes service under Section 153 of the Customs Act. The Court also held that an endorsement stating "Left" was not sufficient to prove the contrary. An appeal filed two years after the date of communication of the order of the Commissioner cannot be entertained by condoning the delay when the impugned order was despatched to the known address of the applicants. He further staled that the applicants could not produce any communication to the Customs House denoting that they had shifted from the premises indicated in the bills of entry or in the correspondence entered into. He, therefore, strongly pleaded that the application for condonation of delay should be rejected as it is not made on legal grounds.

4. After perusing the records and hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that the reasons given by the applicants for condonation of delay are not valid. We find that the provisions of Section 153 of the Customs Act have been duly complied with when the service of the order was made. We also observe that the service of the order is valid in terms of the decision of the Madras High Court. We, therefore, do not see sufficient reason to condone the delay of two years in filing the appeals.

5. The applications for condonation of delay are dismissed along with the appeals as time barred.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Deepak Nitrite Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice, A M Moheb