Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 945 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing appeal - whether the appeal was filed within time limitation? - HELD THAT:- The Revenue has not placed on record the acknowledgement due after having served/communicated the Order-in-Original to the appellant and hence, I am of the prima facie view that the date of communication, as claimed by the appellant, has to be accepted. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of JAI ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CHENNAI [2006 (5) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] has observed that apparently the notice was sent to the proper address while the Postal Authorities made an endorsement “left” and in the case of M/s. Jai Enterprises (supra), the endorsement given by the Postal Authorities was “absent” and “intimation delivered”, for which reason it was observed that the petitioner therein was avoiding service. Any order normally would be sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), which would have been the case here also followed by the Adjudicating Authority. So, when the Order-in-Original was dispatched by RPAD in terms of Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, the acknowledgement must have come back, which is not placed on record. In any case, the service of the same on the very same day can also not be accepted since the location of the assessee is in a different State. There was no delay in filing the first appeal and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was in error in rejecting the appeal as time-barred - the matter is remanded to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appellant and pass an order on merits in accordance with law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|