IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1455 of 2005 M/S SHREE DURGA TRADERS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 3 13.5.2008 This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4th June 2006 (Annexure-4) passed by Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the tribunal”), whereby the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been rejected. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Custom, the petitioner preferred Appeal no. CDM- 160/03. As the appeal was not presented within the time prescribed by law, a prayer was made for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Application (COD) No.342/03. The only ground pleaded for condoning the delay is that the writ petitioner “ could receive order impugned on 2.8.2003, that is, after expiry of statutory period of filing an appeal”. This plea of the petitioner was considered by the tribunal and being found not satisfactory the application for condoning the delay was rejected and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. It is relevant to state here that the tribunal gave opportunity to the appellant to substantiate its case that the order was received on 2.8.2003, that is, the date claimed by it of its receipt. The Commissioner of Custom pleaded before the tribunal that the order was sent under registered cover on 5.2.2003 and the same was not returned undelivered to the office and in view of that 2 the registered post shall be deemed to have been served on the petitioner. This presumption has not been rebutted by the petitioner by bringing any other material before the tribunal. The only plea taken by the petitioner being found to be unsubstantiated, the tribunal had no option then to reject the application for condonation of delay. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the tribunal may be directed to consider the petitioner’s appeal on merit. Ordinarily, we are very liberal in condoning the delay in filing the appeal but here in the present case, we have found that the plea taken by the petitioner has not been substantiated at all. In that view of the matter, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this court in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. We do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) Neyaz/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)