C . M. A . No .3-C-2004 ' The vehicle of the respondents was intercepted and seized, against which they approached the Additional Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Multan, who vide Order-in-Original No,357 of 2003, dated 4-6-2003 ordered for outright confiscation of the vehicle.
Order-in-Original was set, aside by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, vide judgment and order, dated 30-3-2004 whereby learned Tribunal set aside the Order-in- Original, observing the impugned order as harsh and ordered the appellant to restore the vehicle back to his owner.
2. The impugned order, dated 30-3-2004 was served under section 194(B) of the Customs Act, 1969, on 10-4-2004 as is reflected from the endorsement of Assistant Registrar on the said order. The appellant applied for another copy on 27-4-2004 which was issued on the same date to the appellant Instant appeal was filed on 21-6-2004 and certain objections were raised on 12-7-2004 which were to be removed within three days, but the same were not removed within the stipulated period and appeal was re-filed, after removal of objections, vide Diary No,1076 on 11-8-2004. The appeal, as per the provisions of section 196(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, was to be filed within a period of sixty days from the date the notice under section 194(B) of the Customs Act, is served.
3. The applicant seeks condonation of delay on the grounds that the copy of the judgment was not forwarded to the Collector, Customs and the moment it came to the knowledge of the applicant, certified copies were obtained and the appeal was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the delay is neither deliberate nor wilful. The period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the judgment. He has submitted that there is no delay, as the judgment was not communicated to the Collectorate, not there is any acknowledgment in the record of the Collectorate of Customs.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the record and endorsement on the impugned judgment reflect that the copy of the judgment was forwarded to both the sides. The appellant, after receiving the copy of the judgment, when it was reissued on its application, still had plenty of time to file appeal within sixty days. Petitioner waited for whole of the month of May and till June 21st. There is no explanation that what abstained the appellant to file the appeal within the period of limitation as prescribed by law.
6. Special law has provided different periods of limitation for filing appeal in this Court than the ordinary law, therefore, section 5 of the Limitation Act, is not attracted to the present set of circumstances. As authority for this proposition, we may refer to the cases of Allah Ditta v. Farooq Ahmad and 3 others PLD 1979 Lah. 917, Bashir Ahmad and others v. United Bank Limited Lahore and another 2004 CLD 472 and Sheikh Muhammad Kashif v. Askari Leasing Limited through Manager/ Chief Executive of Branch/Recovery Officer 2004 CLD 1645 can be referred. Cases of Ali Muhammad and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCMR 1239 and Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286 need specific mention, where the apex Court has enunciated the provisions of section 5 of the Act have no application to the appeals filed under the special statute, where different periods of limitation have been prescribed. Being guided by the aforesaid law, we have no hesitation to hold that application under section 5 of the Act is misconceived, incompetent and not maintainable, therefore, the same is dismissed.
Main Appeal
7. The appeal has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and application for condonation of delay (C.M. No,3-C-2007) has also been dismissed being not maintainable.
Therefore, this appeal, being barred by limitation, is not competent and is accordingly dismissed.
8. Before parting with this judgment, we still need to observe that there is no evidence that duties and taxes have been paid. There is no record of the vehicle, with the Registration Authority. The database of the imported vehicle, reflects that the record of this vehicle, has not been found, nor the same is available. Allowing such vehicle to ply on roads, is a security threat, thus, appellant is at liberty to initiate a fresh action, permissible under law, in this respect, after collecting appropriate evidence to the effect that no duties have been paid and the registration of the vehicle is fake.