Full Text
Translation output
r $-29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
I CUSTOM A. 2/2013
SSS SAI SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD
Through : Ms Shikha Sapra
I CUSTOM A. 2/2013
SSS SAI SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD
Through : Ms Shikha Sapra
VERSUS
Petitioner COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT AND GENERAL Respondent
Tlirough : Mr Kamal Nijhawan with Mr Sumit Gaur
Tlirough : Mr Kamal Nijhawan with Mr Sumit Gaur
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR .JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
HON'BLE MR .JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
CM 2058/2012
05.02.2013 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
05.02.2013 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CUSTOM A. 2/2013 & CM 2057/2012
This appeal is filed against the order dated 26.11.2012 in C/COD/4489/2012 in
C/3518/2012, whereby the said condonation ofdelay application filed on behalf ofthe department has been allowed and the delay of55 days has been condoncd. Paragraph
2 of the said order indicates that nobody was present for the respondent norwas there any application for adjournment. The learned counsel for the appellant contests this statement inasmuch as, according to her, no notice was received by her ofthe filing of the said application. She placed reliance on Rule 18 of the CESfAl (Procedure)
Rules, 1982, which reads as under:-
"RULE 18. Date and place of hearing to be notified — (1) The
Tribunal shall notify to the parties the date and place of hearing of the appeal or application."
As per the said Rule, the Tribunal has to notify the parties as regards the date and place ofhearing ofthe appeal orapplication.
2013:DHC:6664-DB (2 In view of the categorical statement made by the learned counsel forlHe appellant, we feel that it would be appropriate that it should be ascertained by the
Tribunal as to whether the appellant had been served with a notice of the date and place of hearing of the application / appeal or not. This can only be verified from the rccords available with the registry ofthe CESTAT. Therefore, it would be appropriate if we dispose of this appeal by enabling the appellant to file an appropriate application before the said Tribunal for ascertaining as to whether any notice had been served or not. If it is found that no notice of the application / appeal was served on the appellant, then the said order dated 26.11.2012, insofar as it conccrns the appellant, ^ would not operate and the appellant would be entitled to be heard on the condonation of delay application filed by the respondent.
The said application be moved before the Tribunal within a week. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.
B^AR DURREZ AHMED, J R.V.EASWAR, J f FEBRUARY 05, 2013
SR
2013:DHC:6664-DB
This appeal is filed against the order dated 26.11.2012 in C/COD/4489/2012 in
C/3518/2012, whereby the said condonation ofdelay application filed on behalf ofthe department has been allowed and the delay of55 days has been condoncd. Paragraph
2 of the said order indicates that nobody was present for the respondent norwas there any application for adjournment. The learned counsel for the appellant contests this statement inasmuch as, according to her, no notice was received by her ofthe filing of the said application. She placed reliance on Rule 18 of the CESfAl (Procedure)
Rules, 1982, which reads as under:-
"RULE 18. Date and place of hearing to be notified — (1) The
Tribunal shall notify to the parties the date and place of hearing of the appeal or application."
As per the said Rule, the Tribunal has to notify the parties as regards the date and place ofhearing ofthe appeal orapplication.
2013:DHC:6664-DB (2 In view of the categorical statement made by the learned counsel forlHe appellant, we feel that it would be appropriate that it should be ascertained by the
Tribunal as to whether the appellant had been served with a notice of the date and place of hearing of the application / appeal or not. This can only be verified from the rccords available with the registry ofthe CESTAT. Therefore, it would be appropriate if we dispose of this appeal by enabling the appellant to file an appropriate application before the said Tribunal for ascertaining as to whether any notice had been served or not. If it is found that no notice of the application / appeal was served on the appellant, then the said order dated 26.11.2012, insofar as it conccrns the appellant, ^ would not operate and the appellant would be entitled to be heard on the condonation of delay application filed by the respondent.
The said application be moved before the Tribunal within a week. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.
B^AR DURREZ AHMED, J R.V.EASWAR, J f FEBRUARY 05, 2013
SR
2013:DHC:6664-DB
JUDGMENT