CUSAP No.17 of 2011(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CUSAP No.17 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:-22.09.2011 Dharamvir Bansal. ......Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Customs , ICD, TKD, New Delhi. ......Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the Appellant. *** HEMANT GUPTA, J.(ORAL) The present appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 arises out of an order passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(for short the Tribunal) on 30.06.2011 whereby the appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation. The learned Commissioner has passed a detailed order on 05.03.2009. The copies were sent to the parties including the present appellant by registered/speed post at the address available with the Commissioner i.e. House No.529, Sector 12, Panchkula(Haryana). The appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 27.04.2010 along with an application for condonation of delay. In the application to seek condonation of delay, it was pleaded that House No.529, Sector 12, Panchkula was taken over by the secured creditor and that the appellant has informed the changed address to the postal authorities but the appellant has not received any information in respect of the decision by the Commissioner, therefore, he could not file appeal within the period prescribed by law. The communication Annexure A-3 relied upon by the appellant is to CUSAP No.17 of 2011(O&M) #2# the post master, Sector 4, Panchkula for change of address. Admittedly there is no information in respect of the change of address to the Commissioner during the period the proceedings were pending before the Commissioner. During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant was appearing in person before the Commissioner. If that is the fact then the receipt of the order by post is insignificant. It is not pointed out that the appellant ever made any effort to find out the status of decision by the Commissioner. Any reasonable effort on the part of the appellant to seek information would have disclosed the fact of decision by Commissioner. In view of said fact, no case is made out for condonation of delay raising any substantial question of law. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 22, 2011 Vinay