9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ramesh Kumar Ghai and Shri Satnam Dass Ghai. Shri S.D. Ghai is the owner of the truck in question and Shri R.K. Ghai is the son of Shri S.D. Ghai and the driver of the said truck. This joint appeal was delayed by one day. Shri Awasthi also stated that as per the orders of this Tribunal Satnam Dass Ghai filed another separate appeal with another condonation application. Shri Awasthi therefore contended that the original order of adjudication which was a certified copy was received by Shri Ramesh Kumar Ghai on 10-6-1989. Therefore, the time is to be counted from 10-6-1989. In this connection, he drew our attention to the affidavit filed by Shri Satnam Dass Ghai, which is during April, 1990, stating that he has not received any Adjudication Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 568. Shri Sarkar, therefore, contended that as far as Satnam Dass Ghai is concerned the order-in-original could have been received by him in the year, 1987 itself as there is no further letter from him addressed to the Department. As far as Shri Ramesh Kumar Ghai is concerned, Shri Sarkar pointed out that in his letter dated 4-2-1989 he has shown his address as G-7/1, Shanti Nagar, Kanpur Cantt., Kanpur. He also pointed out that the brother of Ramesh Kumar Ghai by name - Santosh Kumar Ghai had written a letter to the Department dated 5-9-1986 stating that he had received a letter addressed to Ramesh Kumar Ghai and that he received the same by mistake. That letter was returned to the Department by Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow that letter dated 17-9-1987 with a copy of the Adjudication Order was sent to the learned Advocate, Shri Srivastava for Satnam Dass Ghai. It was, therefore, contended that in absence of any such evidence like postal receipts or the like nature, this contention of learned J.D.R. cannot be accepted. He drew our attention to Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. He, therefore, contended that the order should have been sent by either registered post or ordinary post to any of the two applicants - S/Shri Satnam Dass Ghai and Ramesh Kumar Ghai. It was his contention that there was no proper service as contemplated under Sec. 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Shri Sarkar in reply contended that the copy sent to Ramesh Kumar Ghai was also sent b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicants had written a letter to the Customs Department stating that the original copy sent to him was returned as he was out of station. Thereafter, Shri Sarkar contended that a letter was sent dated 17-9-1987 to the learned. Advocate along with a copy of the impugned order. The name of the learned Advocate was Shri Mahendra Srivastava; Shri Sarkar, therefore, contended that there is a presumption that the above copy was received by the party(s). In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 568 in the case of Onkar Steel Rolling Mills, Chandigarh v. Collector of Central Excise. But in this case, there is no postal receipt or proof produced to show that the letter dated 17-9-1987 was sent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the certified copy of the order and when they were asked to pay Rs. 10.00 they paid the same and that does not raise any presumption that they had originally received the order in question. 7. We have considered the submissions. Merely because of the fact that the applicant, Shri R.K. Ghai had deposited Rs. 10/- towards the certified copy, it does not raise a presumption that the applicant had received the original order. Even otherwise, under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, an order or decision shall be served on the party by tendering the order or by sending it by registered post. If the same cannot be served by tendering it to him personally or by registered post, then the same should have been affixed on the notice-board. Hence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
