Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ravi Overseas And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 2 May, 2013
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Ritu Bahri
Custom Appeal No.13 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Custom Appeal No.13 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.05.2013
M/s Ravi Overseas and another
..... Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar , Advocate
for the appellants.
Hemant Gupta, J (Oral)
The present appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is directed against the order passed by the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') on 08.12.2005. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay of 2463 days in filing of the appeal.
The appellant asserts that certified copy of the order was supplied to the petitioner only on 04.12.2012 in response to the letter dated 30.11.2012 of the applicant. Thereafter, the appellant filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal and hence the present appeal has been filed.
A perusal of the impugned order Annexure P-1 shows that copy of the said order was sent to the appellant under registered A.D. post and also a copy thereof to its counsel Mr.A.K.Vali, Advocate, B-15, Sagar Kumar Vimal 2013.05.04 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Custom Appeal No.13 of 2013 (O&M) 2 Apartments 6, Tilak Mark, New Delhi. There is no averment in the application to seek condonation of delay that the address mentioned in the said letter or that of the counsel is incorrect or that the letter was not received by the appellant or its counsel.
The copy of the order sent under registered A.D. post is presumed to have been received by the addressee. There is no explanation as to why the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. No sufficient cause is even alleged or shown to seek condonation of delay of over six years.
We find that the present appeal has been preferred after gross delay and without showing any sufficient cause to condone such delay. Therefore, the application to seek condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the memorandum of appeal is also dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(RITU BAHRI)
May 02, 2013 JUDGE
jt/Vimal
Kumar Vimal
2013.05.04 12:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh