9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etary supplements vide BOE No. 2533746 dated 26.06.2016, declaring the value of the imported goods and the duty payable thereon. The import consignment was subjected to first check examination by the Department and the samples were also sent to M/s. TUV SUD South Asia Ltd., P.I.E, Bangalore. The test report mentioned that, the goods were found to be fit for human consumption and that the shelf life study cannot be performed on the sample. Subsequently, the goods were subjected to re-examination to ascertain the name of the products, name and address of the manufacturer, lot code, batch no., date of manufacture, expiry date etc. all the details were provided by the manufacturer in a write up and were also found vide slips affixed on the pal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was hit by limitation of time as prescribed under Section 128(1) and (1A) of Customs Act and the Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered by overlooking the said provision. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) while discussing the limitation of time of appeal filed by the importer at para 7 of Order-in-Appeal in filing the appeal has blindly accepted the version of the importer that the Order-in-Original No. 460/2016 passed on 27.09.2016 was received by them on 25.01.2018 and condoned the delay of 28 days. He also submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to make any enquiry as laid do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds for condonation of delay and the learned Commissioner after satisfying himself that the impugned order before him was received by the respondent on 25.01.2018, condoned the delay of 28 days. Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the Department has failed to prove that the impugned order dated 27.09.2016 was served on him because the Department has not been able to bring on record any proof of delivery. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the respondent has proved on record that he received the Order-in-Original only on 25.01.2018. Further I find that the Order-in-Original dated 27.09.2016 was sent to their old address as per the dispatch regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
