9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include delay in filing appeal, validity of service of order, and waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Delay in filing appeal: The applicant filed a Stay Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty confirmed by an ex parte Order-in-Original. The Revenue argued that the appeal was not maintainable due to a delay in filing, as the applicant received the order on 17-10-08 but filed the appeal on 22-10-08. The Revenue contended that the order was dispatched to the new address on 7-8-08, and the appeal was filed within 3 months of this date. The applicant's counsel cited the Larger Bench Judgment of Margra Industries Ltd. to support the argument that mere dispatch of the order does not constitute valid service without proof of actual delivery. Validity of service of order: The applicant claimed that the order was not served on him until 17-10-08 when his Counsel received it under the Right to Information Act. The applicant had changed his address and made efforts to obtain a copy of the order, including sending reminders to the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal found that the first mode of service by tendering the order was not followed by the Revenue, and the order dispatched to the new address on 7-8-08 did not constitute valid service. The Tribunal held that there was no valid service of the order on the applicant. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty: The applicant promptly filed the appeal within 5 days of receiving the order, arguing that the delay was due to the Revenue's failure to properly serve the order. The Tribunal considered the applicant's efforts to obtain the order and found that the appeal was filed in time. Relying on case laws and judgments, the Tribunal held that the appeal was maintainable and ordered accordingly, directing the Registry to list the Stay Application for hearing.
|
