TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 05.03.2010. The order is addressed to M/s. Interport Logistics Pvt. Ltd., CHA No. 11/1167 with direction to surrender the original CHA licence and all the Customs pass of their employees. It is a direction to the CHA and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Director of the appellant – firm received the same in his personal capacity. Even when an order is sent through registered post, some Individual present in the office has to receive the order and, therefore, it does not make any difference as to who received the order - No sufficient reason to condone delay - Condonation denied. - C/102/2011 & C/COD – 318/2011 - M/385 13/CSTB/C - I & A/390/ 13/CSTB/C - I - Dated:- 4-12-2012 - P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN And ANIL COUDHARY, JJ. For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 (242) ELT 471 (Tri. Del.); Wellman industan Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane I 2010 (261) ELT 706 (Tri. - Mumbai) and riveni lass Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad 2011 (272) ELT 187 (All.) and accordingly p rays or condoning the delay. 4. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue submitted a copy of the letter confirming service of the order to Shri Kishore Chandra, No. Kardex C 633 on 05.03.2010 with irections to surrender the CHA licence and the Customs pa sses at the earliest and, therefore, submits hat COD application does not merit consideration. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions ade by both the sides. 5.1. In the affidavit filed by Shri Kishore Chandra it is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. In that case it was held that the person who received the orde r should disclose his identity and should state that he has received the same on behalf of the company. Similarly, in the case of Triveni Glass case, cited supra, service was not established by any documentary evidence except for a noting made by an employ ee of the department themselves. In the Davo Laboratoies case penalty was imposed on the partners of the appellant firm and also the appellant firm and, therefore, it was held that receipt of the order by the partner will not amount to service on the a ppellant firm. In the present case the facts are distinct and distinguishable. The order relates to revocation of CHA licence of the appellant and not with regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
