TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts as stated in the affidavit. The exemplary cost has to be imposed on the appellant - the cost to be paid by the appellant is quantified at Rupees One lakh, which shall also be recovered from the appellant with interest at the rate as provided in the statute, from the date of filing of the second affidavit, ie. from 15.02.2007. - Cus. Appeal. No. 2 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2018 - MR K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The Appellant : ADVS. SRI. E. K. NANDAKUMAR (SR. ) AND M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR For The Respondent : ADVS. SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC, SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI AND SRI. THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC JUDGMENT K . Vinod Chandran, J . This second appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was found that the markings did not match and 47 bars were not those declared. Those declared were only 12 gold bars, found in possession of the carrier, borne out by the markings which matched those declared. Proceedings for confiscation were initiated as against the contraband gold. We are not concerned with the merits, but only briefly noticed the cause of action for more completeness. 4. The appeal from the original order was filed on 13.12.2005 with an application for condonation of delay of 1662 days. In the affidavit accompanying the appeal memorandum, the appellant had specifically stated that the date of communication of the order was on 27.05.2001 and hence delay occasioned of 1662 days was sought to be condoned. The Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal, there was no such direction. We would not say anything more on that, but affirm the Tribunal's views on both these aspects, especially since we do not find anything to disbelieve the Tribunal as to what transpired on the previous posting date. 7. The Tribunal despite the improper filing of the affidavit and the technical defects noticed, considered the averments made and found that the facts stated therein were incorrect. The affidavit at Annexure C shows a statement by the appellant that he was first informed of the order when he was granted bail, on 16.11.2004, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate [Economic Offenses] Court, Ernakulam; the matter having been informed to him by his co-accused. The appellant after obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt was not an authorised agent. The submission of the Department was that the appellant's full name is 'Pannikkandathil Mohammed Saleem' and 'P.K.' is the abbreviation of 'Pannikkandathil'. The appellant denied the same by producing his Passport, which evidenced that he was not in station on 31.05.2001, when the acknowledgment card was signed. The Tribunal then looked at Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 [for brevity, 'the Act'], which speaks of service of notice, first by tendering directly to the person or by sending it through registered post. The Tribunal relied on a decision of this Court in Ambali Karthikeyan v. Collector of Customs [2000 (125) ELT 50 (Ker.)] and two other decisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also deems service, on the notice being send by registered post. Section 27 indicates that 'unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document' and 'unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected, at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post'. There is absolutely no contrary evidence adduced by the appellant. In such circumstances, we do not think that there could be any interference caused to the order of the Tribunal. 12. We are also of the opinion that there was a clear abuse of process of law in so far a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
