9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned Order-in-Original No. 11/Cus/CC(P)/WB/2012 dated 07.05.2012 passed by Commr. of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, Kolkata, had not been communicated/received by the Applicant, therefore, they had approached the Department for supply of a copy of the order on 7th January, 2013 for filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The Superintendent of Customs, declined to accept the said letter dated 7th January, 2013 and informed the Applicant that the order dated 7th May, 2012, had been dispatched to them by Speed Post. However, on persuasion by the Applicant, the Superintendent of Customs, issued an attested copy of the said impugned order on 22nd January, 2013. Consequently, the Appeal was filed on 14th March, 2013. 3. It is his submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignature is not of the Applicant, nor, he had received the same. 6. Consequently, the Department was directed to ascertain as to whom the said Speed Post was delivered. Consequently, the ld. Spl.Counsel sought time to ascertain the receipt of the said order delivered at the address of CHA. After making necessary investigation, the ld. Spl. Counsel for the Revenue, on a report from the Customs House, has submitted that in his statement dated 20.11.2013, Shri Subhas Chandra Ghosh, Partner of CHA, has admitted that the signature shown in the acknowledgement page of Speed Post in the Despatch Register produced by the Customs Department as obtained from the postal authority, is his signature. It is the submission of the ld.Spl.Counsel th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... municated to the Applicant. Besides, the Applicants conduct is not bonafide, inasmuch as, all along, they have been disputing the service of the said order through Speed Post. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master General Vs. Living Media India Ltd. : 2012 (277) ELT 0289 (S.C.), the delay of 221 days being not bonafide and without sufficient cause, therefore, deserves not to be condoned. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that initial claim of the Applicant is that they did not receive the order dated 7th May, 2012, till 22nd January, 2013. It has been consistently argued that the Department had not served a copy of the order and hence, they could not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
