9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Communication gap leading to ex-parte order, delay in filing appeal, confusion regarding change of address, condonation of delay, DEPB benefit, protection of revenue.
Communication gap leading to ex-parte order: The appellant was prevented from appearing before the adjudicating authority due to a communication gap, resulting in an ex-parte order. The appellant's counsel argued for consideration of Circular No. 67/97-Cus. to support the appellant's case. Delay in filing appeal: The appellant sought condonation of an 83-day delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons beyond their control and no mala fide intention. The appellant emphasized the importance of not being deprived of justice due to a procedural delay. Confusion regarding change of address: A report from the authorities indicated that the appellant had caused confusion regarding a change of address, receiving communications at both old and new addresses. The revenue prayed for dismissal of the appeal due to perceived evasive practices by the appellant. Condonation of delay: The Tribunal acknowledged the questionable conduct of the appellant but decided to condone the 85-day delay in the interest of justice. However, a warning was issued that any deliberate delays in the future would be dealt with according to the law. DEPB benefit and protection of revenue: The appellant's counsel argued for limiting the DEPB benefit to Rs. 5,62,564, criticizing an arbitrary order-in-original with an exorbitant demand. To protect the revenue, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within four weeks and appear before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal admitted the appeal after condoning the delay and directed the appellant to make a deposit to protect the revenue. The matter was remanded for reconsideration without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
|
