2019 (1) TMI 79 - AT - Customs

Demand of anti dumping duty - Service of notice - case of assessee is that demand not sustainable as Demand Notice having not been served within six months from the date of the Order and the address of the assessee mentioned in the Notice also being incomplete - Held that - Except the Bill of Entry and the assessee s letter head, nowhere do we find a mention of Mutha Market and this is absent even in the appellant s Form of Appeal before the appellate authorities. It is not its case that there has been substantial change in the very address itself or that the Notice was sent to incorrect address. Nor is the assessee disputing the remarks of the postal authorities who have identified but could not deliver because of door lock - These facts coupled with the fact that the appellant has nowhere disputed the very liability to ADD makes it all the more clear that the assessee is making hue and cry unnecessarily. The reasons attributed for non-service by the appellant is not acceptable - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Service of Demand Notice within the stipulated time frame and the completeness of the address mentioned in the Notice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Service of Demand Notice within the stipulated time frame
In this appeal, the key contention was that the Demand Notice was not served within six months from the date of the Order, and the address mentioned in the Notice was incomplete. The appellant argued that the Demand Notice was not properly addressed, leading to non-receipt, and service by affixture on the Notice Board was done after the lapse of six months. The appellant also highlighted that the Order-in-Original mentioned unsuccessful attempts to serve the Demand Notice on the appellant. The appellant further contended that they received the Demand Notice after the limitation period and without the complete address details. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their arguments.

Issue 2: Completeness of the address mentioned in the Notice
The address discrepancies were a crucial point of contention. The Bill of Entry, the appellant's letterhead, and subsequent documents showed variations in the address details, specifically the absence of "Mutha Market" in some instances. The appellant challenged the completeness of the address used in the Order-in-Original and subsequent appeal forms. The tribunal noted the absence of "Mutha Market" in most documents and the appellant's failure to dispute the liability to Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD). The tribunal found the appellant's arguments regarding the address discrepancies unsubstantiated and viewed the appellant's objections as unnecessary, particularly since the appellant had made address omissions themselves.

Final Decision
After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the appellant for non-service of the Demand Notice were not acceptable. The tribunal upheld the Order of the lower authorities, stating that no substantial arguments were presented regarding the liability of ADD. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the impugned Order in its entirety.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of timely service of legal notices and the need for accuracy in address details. It also highlights the significance of presenting substantial arguments on the merits of the case to challenge legal decisions effectively.