TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 02.08.2018 as Annexure A-15 in the appeal paper book. Further, we find that Section 153(1b) of the Customs Act provides that where notice or order is despatched by registered post or speed post the same has to be under acknowledgement due. We find that Revenue has not produced the acknowledgement due as proof of delivery. Prima facie, it appears probable that the appellant did not receive th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Representative for the respondent ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY: There is a delay of 512 days in preferring the appeal against order-in-original dated 15.09.2017. 2. Heard Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the respondent. 3. Learned Counsel Ms. Jasmeet Kaur for the appellant states that the impugned order was nev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atch docket No. 18909 was despatched by speed post on 19.09.2017 under speed post No. ED 324447374 IN. Further, the said despatch was not returned by the post office undelivered. Accordingly, there is presumption of service, copy of the despatch register and the speed post receipt is also annexed with the report. Accordingly, he states that the appellant lacks bonafide in pursuing the appellate re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppears probable that the appellant did not receive the impugned order, and could know about the said order, only in August, 2018, when they received the recovery notice. We further find that the case laws relied upon by the Revenue are not applicable in the facts of the present case as the facts are different particularly in those cases, the appellants have admitted receipt of the impugned order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
