Shri Gautam Dalmia vs. Union Of INDIA , The Chief Commissioner Of Customs & Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned adjudication order dated June 26, 2012, which was disclosed in the affidavit in reply, would be treated as a certified copy for the purpose of filing an appeal. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within three weeks from the date of the order, based on this disclosed copy, the Appellate Authority shall accept it, subject to compliance with other formalities. The reasoning was based on the admitted non-compliance with the prescribed service procedure under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1960, and the petitioner's request to enable them to file a statutory appeal. The ratio decidendi is that where a statutory order is not served in the prescribed manner, and the assessee seeks to file an appeal, the court may direct that the disclosed copy be treated as valid for appeal filing to ensure access to statutory remedies.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Gautam Dalmia, challenged an adjudication order dated June 26, 2012, passed by the respondent Customs Authority. The petitioner contended that the order was not served in accordance with Section 153(a) of the Customs Act, 1960, which mandated service by registered post or approved courier. The petitioner stated they had not received the order through any prescribed mode. The respondent Customs Authority argued that the order was sent by speed post, but admitted they could not prove its actual receipt by the petitioner. They also conceded that speed post was not a recognized mode of service under Section 153 at the relevant time, though it was added later. The petitioner sought a certified copy to file a statutory appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned adjudication order dated June 26, 2012, was validly served upon the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 153(a) of the Customs Act, 1960, prevailing at the relevant time? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the order was not served in the manner prescribed by Section 153(a) of the Customs Act, 1960, which required service by registered post or approved courier. They claimed non-receipt of the order through any legally recognized mode. They relied on an unreported judgment of this Court in WPA 4249 of 2022 (Haldia Petrochemicals Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Haldia-II Division, Haldia Commissionerate & Ors.), which was upheld by a Division Bench. Revenue's argument: The respondent Customs Authority submitted that the order was sent by speed post. However, they could not establish actual receipt by the petitioner and conceded that speed post was not a valid mode of service under Section 153 at the time, though it was introduced later.