9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proof of extension of period. Exporter has neither deposited the drawback nor submitted the copy of extension by RBI. 3. Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No.6/2012 dated 30.9.2010 ordered recovery of Rs. 1,07,451/- alongwith interest of under Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995 along with section 75 of Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3000/-under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-submission of proof of sale proceeds in foreign currency in stipulated period. 4. Aggrieved against above the Order-in-Original appellant had filed the present appeal after one year six months twenty three days. They have not filed any application for Condonation of Delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of Thirty days. 7. He did not accept the plea of the appellant that they were informed only on 23/2/2012 in compliance of RTI application made by them. The order was dispatched to the appellant through registered post on the available address with the department but the same was returned undelivered with remark "LEFT", and same was pasted on Notice Board on 31.01.2011 as per procedure prescribed under customs law. 8. He further examined that Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides the procedure for serving of order or decisions passed under the Customs Act have been prescribed. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly he held that the present appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time for filing the same, thus it is hit by bar of limitation, accordingly, he rejected the same without going in to the merit of the case. 11. I have also gone through the facts grounds of appeal taken up by the appellant claiming both the addresses and dispatched have not considered the new address and dispatched the order in old address. Accordingly I find that Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a reasoned order on the limitation. Further, in catena of judgments it is held that unless the contrary is proved, service shall be deemed to have been properly effected when a letter properly addressed, pre-paid and posted by registered post. For this I rely on the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. We find no difficulty in coming to the conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
