Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Zibal Exim Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

2016 (4) TMI 718 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Condonation of delay - Delay of 244 days - Appellant pleaded that they have not received the original OIA passed on 14.10.14 till date - Held that:- the address of the appellant is correctly written and there is no change in the address but the letter has been returned as "unclaimed". On receipt of the recovery notice, the appellant has immediately taken steps with the Commissioner (Appeals) asking for a certified copy. The Superintendent of (Appeals-II) for Commissioner (Appeals - V) intimating .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

andrasekaran. 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. On perusal of the Customs Act,it is found that there is no provision to order authorized person .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t order in appeal was passed on 14.10.14 and they have not received the order till date. They came to know from Arrears Recovery Cell of Customs of Tuticorin letter dt.25.6.2015 where the Department sought for recovery of confirmed dues. Subsequently, they came to know that Order in appeal was passed and they took up the matter with Commissioner (Appeals) on 22.7.15 and the Commissioner (Appeals) on 27.7.15 informed them that the order appeal was despatched by RPAD to the Appellant on 16.10.14. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urugan 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version