Commissioner Of Customs (Prev.) vs Aditya Trading Co.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1819 Del

ORDER

1. The order that has been impugned in this appeal is dated 1.7.2003. Prior to the filing of this appeal on 26.8.2004, the Respondents herein have on several occasions reminded the appellant requesting him to implement the impugned order. Since no action was taken, the Respondents filed WP (C) 11745-4 6/2004 in this Court in July, 2004 seeking implementation of the order dated 1.7.2003. These petitions were disposed off in favor of the Respondents by order dated August 16, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The appellant herein was duly represented in those proceedings on July 23, 2004, July 30, 2004 as well as on August 16, 2004.

2. It is not in dispute that the impugned order ought to have been implemented within two weeks from the order dated August 16, 2004 of this Court in W.P.(C) 11745-46/2004. We are informed by the counsel for the appellant that the impugned order dated 1.7.2003 was implemented as late as in December, 2004. Meanwhile the present appeal was filed on 26.8.2004, without a certified copy of the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal is duty bound to supply a copy of the impugned order. This assumes such an order had not been supplied. Nevertheless, learned Counsel for the appellant states that a request for a certified copy had been made to the Registrar, CEGAT on 23.7.2004. There is, however, total inaction on the part of the appellant for almost one year, in which period the Respondents had repeatedly made representations to the appellant for implementing the impugned order. This is not a case where the appellant was not aware of the passing of the impugned order.

3. No satisfactory grounds to condone the delay are shown. The application for condensation of delay is accordingly dismissed.

4. In view of the dismissal of application for condensation of delay, the customs Act case No. 5/2004 is also dismissed.