TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for an appealable copy of the Order-in-Original dated 23.6.2000. However, this letter was not available before the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the aforesaid letter, the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent had not received the order dated 23.6.2000 become incorrect. Since in the second appeal, the Order-in-Original is based on the first order dated 23.6.2000, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.K. Mall, AC (AR), for Appellant Shri S.S. Gupta, C.A., for Respondent Per: Ramesh Nair These are two appeals filed by the Revenue. One against the Order-in-Appeal by which Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original dated 23.6.2000 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai, whereby the declared value was enhanced by 20%. The second app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by the respondent and they came to know only after receipt of show-cause notice dated 20.1.2004 from Dy. Commissioner/Contract Cell. The same fact has not been disputed by the Department by way of furnishing evidence to show that the appellants have actually received the said order dated 23.6.2000. He submits that it is clear from the appellants letter dated 29.10.2002 that the respondent had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided on merit. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that from the letter dated 29.10.2002, which is on the letter head of the respondent, it appears that the order was received by the respondent in the year 2000 itself. In the said letter, the respondent requested for an appealable copy of the Order-in-Original dated 23.6.2000. However, this letter was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
