TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, M/s. ITI Ltd. requested for speaking order from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs ICD, Whitefield, Bangalore. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs ICD, instead of issuing a speaking order issued a letter No. C. No. VIII/Q6/35072005-ICD-IMP 1828, dt. 20-4-2006. Aggrieved by the said letter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 168/2006, dated 12-12-2006 rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation that the letter dated 20-4-2006 was received by the appellant s Corporate Office on 4-7-2006 and the appeal was filed by the appellants on 5-10-2006. There was a delay of 93 days and he could not condone the delay beyond 90 days along with the statutory filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted the evidence for address to be communicated on page Nos. 19 to 22 (copies of Bill of Entries where the importer details were mentioned) and page Nos. 26 to 31 (a copy of request letter for issue of assessment order) shows the concerned officer name and addresses were mentioned submitted in the appeal paper book. (v) As the main issue of communication of address is factually incorrect, it is felt that the observation of Hon ble CESTAT that so long as the communication address is provided to the department, then the department cannot be blamed is not factually correct and therefore needs to be rectified/expunged/re-examined. Hence the Hon ble CESTAT may be pleased to pass orders and issue a suitable direction concerning rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Corporate Office. When we scrutinize both the addresses, we find that the Plant as well as the Corporate Office are situated in a place called Dooravaninagar . When the communication was sent to the General Manager of the Corporate Office, it would not be difficult for him to send to the concerned person, whether he is in the plant or in other place for taking necessary action. The fact that the communication from the department was received in the Corporate Office is not disputed. The appellant s officers in-charge of the appeals had been very careless in not appealing to the Commissioner (Appeals) in time. We have also carefully gone through the impugned Order-in-Appeal. We have taken all these things into account and passed the Final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
