TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) order was received from S.Chandrasekaran and the appellant written back to Commissioner (Appeals) informed that Shri.S.Chandrasekaran was not appointed by the appellant. From this, it is found that the Authorized Advocates are Velmurugan and others to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants have not authorized Shri. Chandrasekaran. On perusal of the whole correspondence of appellants with Commissioner (Appeals), the certified copy was not issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants requested for the same. Thus, it is found that appellants obtained a copy of the impugned order through Recovery Cell by email copy dt.13.8.15. Also Section 153 of the Customs Act existed during the period in dispute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers to appear on behalf of them and they have not authorized any person. He submits that it appears that Advocate Velmurugan is unauthorized and appellant authorized S.Chandrasekaran to appear before the Commissioner. He submits that they have not received any copy of the order from S.Chandrasekaran, Advocate and he is not authorized by the Appellant. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to issue any certified copy and directed us to obtain a copy from S.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, since he has not authorized a copy of the order from Arrears Recovery Cell by email dt.13.8.2015 (page 77) requested to Condone the Delay. 3. On the other hand, the Learned AR opposed the submissions of the Counsel and the order has been despatched by RPAD a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m this, we find that the Authorized Advocates are Velmurugan and others to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants have not authorized Shri. Chandrasekaran. On perusal of the whole correspondence of appellants with Commissioner (Appeals), the certified copy was not issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellants requested for the same. Thus, we find that appellants obtained a copy of the impugned order through Recovery Cell by email copy dt.13.8.15. We also find that Section 153 of the Customs Act existed during the period in dispute. On perusal of the Customs Act, we find that there is no provision to order authorized person. Considering the background of the case and also considering the nature of the dispute involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
