- (1.) The Court : This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring appeal against an order dated 7th July, 2006. Delay is about 480 days. Direction for filing affidavit was given but no affidavit has been filed within the time stipulated by this Court. In view of the urgency of the matter it is difficult for us to grant further time to file opposition. Some time number of days does not matter in condoning the delay of the application. It is found from the pronouncement of the Apex Court that even the longer time than the present one is accepted and allowed the appeal to be heard on merit. Here while reading the explanation we are not convinced for the reasons as stated hereunder. The impugned order passed on 7th July, 2006 and the order was communicated not by the concerned department but by the respondent herein through their learned Advocate from a communication dated 18th November, 2006. Inspite of receipt of this communication no step was taken for obtaining certified copy of the order. It is true that period of limitation is reckoned from the date of passing of the order. Therefore it is immaterial whether the petitioner gets copy of the order or not. According to us when the petitioner has come to know about the passing of the order even we have presumed that the petitioner was ignorant of the consent of order dated 23rd November, 2006 no step was taken to obtain certified copy of the same. In stead of doing the same the petitioner has taken following infructuous and inappropriate steps. On 23rd August, 2007 Customs House caused inquiry and made searches to ascertain whether the department has received the copy of the said order dated July 7, 2006 from CESTAT and CD section informed the department that the said order dated July 7, 2006 was not received. Thereafter the Joint Commissioner of Customs wrote a letter to the Assistant Registrar requesting him to confirm whether they have served the said order to the department. We failed to understand why such letter was written at all when the law does not require writing of such letter. Attempt should have been taken to obtain certified copy of the impugned order. Thereafter on 3rd December, 2007 Ministry of Law requests the Lawyer. Then on 10th March, 2008 when the writ petition for enforcement was heard it was made known to the petitioner and that order was communicated by the Assistant Registrar by letter dated March 3, 2008. Thereafter on 6th May, 2008 Joint Commissioner of Customs wrote a letter dated May 6, 2008 again requesting the Assistant Registrar to confirm about the serving of the said order dated July 7, 2006. On 9th May, 2008 the Special Investigation Bench sent an office note to the Tribunal Section informing the fact that the department wishes to appeal against the said order and also wishes to move a stay of the said order and in view of the same to take all necessary steps.
(2.) We failed to understand why this exercise was at all warranted in between 13th May, 2008 till 13th September, 2008. Time was spent for unnecessary exercise which is nothing to do with the effective steps for preferring the appeal and subsequent dates are irrelevant as they are not relevant either to consider.
(3.) Hence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above we are of the view that the department is not really keen to prefer the appeal but just to sit tight over the matter without any ground. Hence we reluctant to dismiss this application similarly the appeal is also dismissed.;