9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and filed refund claim for Rs.23,30,109/-. The lower authority vide Order in Original dated 18.5.2012, after verifying the records allowed refund of the entire amount of Rs.23,30,109/-. On review of the Order in Original dated 18.5.2012, based on certain observations, department issued Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 6.9.2012 for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,31,091/- as the goods pertaining to Bill of Entry No. 2869391 dated 2.3.2011 were cleared at Tuticorin Port and does not pertain to the jurisdiction of Chennai Customs. Therefore, the sanction of refund towards the said Bill of Entry was sought to be recovered. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the sanction of refund, the department filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on going through the case records, I find that the impugned Order in Appeal dated 31/10/2014 has allowed the department's appeal and directed that action may be initiated to recover the erroneously sanctioned refund. The impugned directions have been acted upon by the Lower Authority and a Demand Notice dated 14/01/2015 has been issued for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,31,091/- erroneously granted, as recorded at para 6 of the said Notice, even prior to three months from the issue of the impugned order. 5. I find that as per Section 129A (3) of the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal can be filed before CESTAT within three months of the communication of the order, whether it is filed by the party or by the department. Thus, coercive action before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decided the matter ex-parte for non-prosecution, however it should not have been done at the first instance when the intimation letter was returned with the remarks 'left and moved'. The appellant should not have been denied the opportunity for a personal hearing as required by the principles of natural justice without making a serious attempt to reach out to him, through his representative or through the department, lest the appellant be aggrieved with closure of the appeal, for unintended lapses. This is not to condone the laxity on the part of the appellant in not updating his new contact address, which is not appreciated. However substantive justice should not be denied on technical grounds without making visible efforts to reach out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
