9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der that the show cause notice was issued to the appellants which is not correct, the appellant has received only recovery order dated 25-5-2008, in pursuance of the same the application dated 17-6-2008 was sent for supply of relevant documents but till filing of this appeal, the appellant has not received any document". Reading of the above paragraph shows that the appellant has nowhere pleaded that order impugned in the present appeal was not received by them well in time. The only averment made is that the show cause notice was not issued to the appellant. Accordingly, the matter was being repeatedly adjourned to enable the appellant to place the factual position on record. Subsequently, an affidavit stands filed by the appellant in sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al position. The impugned order-in-original shows despatch of the same to the appellant at the address, which tallies with the address now given by the appellant in their memorandum of appeal. As such, there is a presumption in law that the impugned order despatched at the correct address must have been received by the appellant. Apart from the above, another factor which reflects upon the receipt of the order by the appellant is the outward number of the order. The explanation placed on record by the concerned officer is reproduced for better appreciation :- "As per the Customs records viz. the despatch register, the Order-in-Original No. KDL/Commr/20/2007, dated 30-3-07 issued on 9-4-07 has been sent by Regd. post on 12-4-07 against outw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. DR, if impugned order was not received by the appellant, how it carries the same outward number 340. It is not the appellant's case that the order despatched by the office of the Commissioner was received by them late. In fact, their contention that the same was never received by them and it has been subsequently procured. If that be so, the copy of the order annexed with the present appeal would not carry outward number 340, which DR explains is only put on the order meant for despatch and that copy can never be a part of the file of the Commissioner. As such, the appellants' contention that they received subsequently the copy of the order is false in view of the above fact. In these circumstances, it has been held that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
