Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Condonation of delay - Appeal filed after a delay of 382 days, which is over and above the condonable delay of 30 days - order in original dated 11.5.2004 not received and it is admitted in the impugned order that the same was sent by Registered Post and returned 'undelivered' - mode prescribed for communication - section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, display in the notice board - change of place of business by petitioner, not intimated to respondents .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al. - Alternative remedy of appeal before the CEGAT - Held that: - the appeal could have been filed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However the petitioner did not prefer any appeal, but chose to file this Writ Petition - one more ground to reject the relief sought for. - Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W. P. No. 34905 of 2005 - Dated:- 14-9-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.K.Jayaraj For the Respondents .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Thus, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was fully justified in refusing to entertain the Appeal, moreso, when the delay is beyond the condonable delay limit. 4. However, the issue raised by the petitioner is that the order in original dated 11.5.2004 was not received by them and it is admitted in the impugned order that the same was sent by Registered Post and returned 'undelivered'. However, the important aspect to be noted is that the provisions of the Customs Act, provides for pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Furthermore, the respondents would add that the copy of the order was also sent to the counsel, because the petitioner was represented by a Counsel before the Adjudicating Authority and the Counsel has received the order. Though this may not be the sole reason for computing the limitation, yet, it can be taken for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that there is reasonable presumption that the petitioner would have come to know about the order passed. One more factor is that during relevant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vered' and thereafter displayed in the Notice Board as per the provisions contained under section 153 of the Customs Act and it was also pointed out that the petitioner has shifted its place of business from the original place and such shifting was ever communicated to the respondents for the purpose of communicating the orders. This Court in its order dated 27.09.2006, has recorded a finding that the fact that the petitioner did not intimate the change of address, is not in dispute. At this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version