2012 (4) TMI 447 - AT - Customs

Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed his Appeal dismissed on ground of limitation Assessee contested that no show-cause notice and order-in-original received Held that - The department issued show-cause notice to the appellant on 25.10.1990 and order-in-original dated 15.10.1991 through registered post, the same was returned un-served with remarks unclaimed - it is an admitted fact that the appellant is residing on the address mentioned in the show-cause notice/order-in-original against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation
- Allegations of non-receipt of show-cause notice and order-in-original
- Confirmation of non-receipt due to deliberate avoidance
- Dismissal of appeal and stay application
- Contempt of Court proceedings initiated against the appellant

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal along with a stay application and an application for early hearing, claiming non-receipt of the show-cause notice and order-in-original. The appellant argued that the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation for not filing within 60 days of communication of the order-in-original. The department reported that both the show-cause notice and order-in-original were sent via registered post but returned unclaimed, indicating deliberate avoidance by the appellant. The Tribunal found the appellant's contention of non-receipt unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and stay application.

The Tribunal, after considering the department's report and the appellant's actions, concluded that the appellant intentionally avoided receiving the show-cause notice and order-in-original. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the delay in filing within the prescribed time frame. The appeal was deemed meritless, and both the stay application and appeal were dismissed accordingly.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant made allegations against the Bench, accusing them of favoring the Revenue without evidence. The Tribunal viewed this as contempt of Court and issued a show-cause notice to the appellant, directing a response by a specified date. The Tribunal deemed the appellant's actions as contemptuous and initiated proceedings against them, emphasizing the seriousness of the matter and the need for a prompt response to the show-cause notice.