9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed in Order-in-Appeal No.89/2010 (H-II) Cus, together with an application to condone the delay of about 175 days in filing the same. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order in Miscellaneous Order No.743/2012 and Final Order No.666, dated 27.09.2012. The application for condonation of delay was filed on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) heard the Order-inAppeal on 20.10.2010, but did not pass the order in the presence of the Counsel/Representative of the appellant. Later on, they came to know that an order was passed and accordingly, sent a letter on 04.02.2011 requesting the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide them a copy of the said order. The Superintendent of the Office of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to the Advocate on 14.07.2011, received draft appeal on 18.07.2011 and ultimately filed the appeal with the delay of about 175 days. They sought condonation of the said delay for the above reasons. The Tribunal dismissed the application with the following observations: "A copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant on 28.10.2010. The appeal was filed on 21.07.2011 with the above delay. In the present application, it is admitted that "some officer in the R&D Wing of the Unit" had received Order-in-Appeal No.89/2010, dated 21.10.2010 on 28.10.2010. It is further submitted that the said Officer was not aware of the importance of the said order-in-appeal and hence, kept it in his drawer and failed to intimate/deliver the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. We have also observed that the present case arose out of the application of the appellant for refund of the import duty wrongly paid by it. Confusion arose due to the wrong-pasting of the speed post slips by the Office of the respondent to the Bollaram address instead of Bachupally address. The application was dismissed solely on the ground that though the order was received on 28.10.2010, no cogent explanation was given from 28.10.2010 to 04.02.2011 and the affidavit of the Officer, who received the said order, was not filed. The correspondence filed before us and admitted by the respondent in their reply thereto clearly shows that the appellant was diligent in pursuing its case. In the circumstances, we hold that the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
