Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Bajaj Bandhu Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) , The Assistant Commissioner of Customs

2016 (10) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

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 - whether on failure to intimate the place o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 : Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopada ORDER Heard Mr.K. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as 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 procedure, by which the order should be communic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he 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 point of time, there were several such impor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tice 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 juncture, it would be relevant to extract th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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