9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Time bar appeal filing due to delay in receiving the order-in-original. 2. Validity of service of adjudication order via speed post without proof of actual delivery. 3. Compliance with Section 153(b) of the Customs Act by simultaneously affixing the order on the notice board. Analysis: 1. The appellant claimed they received the order-in-original after the appeal was filed, within the three-month period. They provided evidence of not receiving the order earlier, including correspondence with authorities and a director's affidavit. The Revenue contended the order was dispatched via speed post and considered served based on precedents. The Tribunal noted the lack of acknowledgment or correspondence proving delivery to the appellant, emphasizing the need for actual receipt before appeal filing. The conflicting views on service required a Larger Bench to resolve the issue. 2. The dispute centered on whether dispatching the order by speed post without proof of delivery constituted valid service under Section 153(a) of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that without acknowledgment of receipt, the last date for appeal filing could not be ascertained. The Revenue relied on precedents to support the deemed service due to dispatch. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of proof of delivery for effective service, leading to the need for a Larger Bench to address the issue. 3. The question of compliance with Section 153(b) arose concerning the simultaneous affixing of the order on the notice board while dispatching it via speed post. The appellant stressed the importance of acknowledgment receipt for service establishment, as per a Gujarat High Court decision. The Revenue argued that posting on the notice board constituted service under Section 153(b). The Tribunal observed the conflicting interpretations and referred the matter to a Larger Bench for clarification on compliance with the Customs Act provisions.
|
