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

GE India Industrial Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export)

2017 (10) TMI 575 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Refund of SAD - service of order of original - appellant claimed that there was a delay in filing appeal on the ground that they did not receive copy of the Order-in-Original since the same might have been sent to their old address - Held that: - the Order-in-Original sent to the appellant's address has not been returned as undelivered - also, they did not intimate the change of address to the department and have not pursued the next hearing date of the refund claim after filing a letter of adjo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an 30 days which is the condonable period prescribed by the statute. - The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of being time barred - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/42627/2014 - Final Order No. 42311 / 2017 - Dated:- 10-10-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri P. Sridharan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench 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

al dt. 30.06.2011 was passed by the refund sanctioning authority rejecting the refund claim. Against this, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) with delay of one year and 11 months and pleaded that they did not receive copy of the Order-in-Original since the same might have been sent to their old address. They obtained duplicate copy of OIO and had filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein rejected appeal being time b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nowledge. The appellant filed reply to the deficiency memo vide letter dt. 27.3.2012 and then, only they came to know that the Order-in-Original has been passed rejecting the refund claim. They applied for copy of the Order-in-Original and preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Counsel strongly argued that as the Order-in-Original was not served/delivered to the appellant, the time for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) would run only from the date of receivi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is seen that the appellants were given three chances of personal hearing on 4.5.2011, 11.5.2011 and 18.5.2011. Matter was taken up by the adjudicating authority for disposal only because appellant did not attend the personal hearing and no communication was received from their side; that appellants have filed appeal beyond the condonable period of delay of the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of time bar. He submitted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sumed that the same has been delivered to the appellant and that there were some means for them to have received the order as well as intimations sent to their old address by way of redirection or such other. It is pointed out by the A.R that there is inordinate delay of more than one year and 11 months in filing the appeal. Within this period, the appellant ought to have enquired and followed the refund application filed by them, especially, when they have filed application for adjournment of p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r was scheduled by the adjudication officer to 18/05/2011. On 16.05.2011 a letter was given to the Customs officer requesting for adjournment of the personal hearing. It is the case of the appellants that their office was shifted to the new premises in May, 2011 and the new address was shown in this letter. That after 16.05.2011 they did not get any intimation regarding their refund claim. They filed reply to the deficiency memo on 27.03.2012 and thereafter came to know that the Order-in-Origina .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellants have brought to the notice of the department that they have shifted their office in May, 2011 only in their letter dated 04.12.2012 while they made a request to issue a duplicate copy of the Order-in-Original. Further, when the appellants made request for adjournment on 16.05.2011, they ought to have pursued the next hearing date. Instead it is seen that they have sought to file a reply to deficiency memo after much delay on 27.03.2012, without even making any enquiry as to the status of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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