9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay petition unconditionally we take up both the appeals inasmuch as the issue involved in both of them is identical. Accordingly we have heard B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consu1tant for the appellants and Shri T.K. Kar and Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. SDRs for the Revenue. 2. Vide his impugned order Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) as also on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 360 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that the service of the notice on the Customs House Agent is not a valid for service inasmuch as the CHA is no longer an agent of the importer after the goods were cleared from the Customs. Similarly in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be said to be services of copy of the order on behalf of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that CHA was authorised by the appellant to contest the case on their behalf before the Deputy Commissioner or to receive the orders on behalf of the appellant. We find force in the appellants' contention that CHA is their authorized agent only for the purposes of importation. As soon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
