The Delhi High Court has refused to condone delay in filing second appeal on the ground that there was a negligence on the part of the assessee in tracking the order and it was not a fault of Commissioner (Appeals).
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be blamed for having sent the order to the earlier address of the Appellant. There has been clear lack of alacrity on behalf of the Appellant, who has not bothered to verify as to whether any order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal preferred at its instance. The duty existed, also, upon the Appellant to check if any order was passed in the appeal.
The Appellant, M/s Techmax Electronics filed the appeal challenging the order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), by which the delay in filing the second appeal has not been condoned by CESTAT.
The Appellant had filed a Bill of Entry for import of certain Brass Ceramic Cartridges from China by Bill of Entry. There was an allegation of misdeclaration, which was made and the value of the goods was alleged to be under-valued. A differential duty of Rs.2,71,201/- was assessed by the Department and confirmed. The OIO also imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 30,000 and penalty of Rs. 2,71,201. In order to avoid the demurrage and detention charges, the Appellant cleared the goods by paying the differential duty and penalty
The order was then challenged by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant had shifted its business premises to an adjacent building in the same locality. However, a fire accident is stated to have occurred at the relocated premises on 21st October 2018, following which the Appellant once again shifted its business to a new location, which remains till date to be its office premises. Presently, however the business is stated to be non-operational.
Though the first shift in office premises was affected in the GST registration, the same was not informed to the Respondent-Department with respect to the appeal proceedings. Following this a personal hearing notice dated 8th January, 2020 was sent to both, the Appellant (to their old office) and the Appellant’s Counsel. The Counsel attended the hearing on 16th January, 2020, but failed to inform the client and also failed to inform the change in address to the Department.
The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order. The Appellant was never communicated the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 1st June, 2020.
The court held that the Department did not have any other option and has exercised its due diligence in accordance with the procedure. As the Appellant did not provide an alternate address and the Counsel failed to inform the Appellant, the Department cannot be held responsible.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Tecmax Electronics Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)
Case No.: CUSAA 47/2025 & CM APPL. 10721/2025
Date: 21st February, 2025
Counsel For Appellant: Mayank Sharma
Counsel For Respondent: Harpreet Singh
