9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NA/GR.III/07-08 dated 17-8-2007. Against that order, the appellant filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, long after the expiry of the statutory period for filing such appeal (60 days plus the condonable period of delay of 30 days). Before the appellate authority, the party claimed that they had received the order of the original authority only on 7-1-08 and therefore their appeal was within the prescribed period of limitation. After a perusal of the relevant records, the appellate authority found that (a) a copy of order-in-original had been dispatched by speed post to the party on 24-8-2007 and (b) another copy was directly served on their CHA on 24-8-2007 itself. On this basis, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal article was not returned undelivered, and that another copy of the order-in-original was directly served on the appellant's CHA on 24-8-2007 itself. These facts have not been successfully contested before us. In these circumstances, subsequent receipt of a copy of order-in-original by the appellant from any officer of Customs is of no consequence. With the despatch of the order-in-original to the party by registered post, the department complied with the requirement of Section 153 of the Customs Act, a legal position which stands established through the case law cited by the ld. SDR. Section 153 of the Customs Act governs the manner of service of orders, notices, summonses etc. on the persons concerned. In the case of P. Bhoormal Tirupa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. The normal presumption, unless the contrary is proved, is that the service shall be deemed to have been properly effected when a letter is properly addressed, pre-paid and posted by registered post. That the notice was sent to proper address, pre-paid and posted by registered post is not under dispute. No other attempt has been made to prove the contrary. The endorsement 'left' is not sufficient to prove the contrary. Apart from it, a reading of the section indicates that the proof to the contrary can only be limited to proving that the service had not been effected at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
