9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Stay application dismissal on grounds of time limitation, service of Order-in-Original, proof of service, compliance with Section 153 of the Customs Act.
Analysis: 1. The stay application was heard based on the argument that the Commissioner (Appeals) unjustly dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to the Order-in-Original dated 6-4-1991. The appellants claimed they never received the order until 19-9-2000 and immediately sought a fresh copy to file an appeal within 3 months, which they did on 23-10-2000. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal citing the delay. 2. The appellants argued that they only became aware of the order upon receiving a demand letter on 29-9-2000. The Deputy Commissioner was asked to provide proof of service, which was requested by the Tribunal for further examination in the hearing. 3. The Deputy Commissioner submitted a note furnishing the proof of service, but the Revenue failed to produce postal acknowledgments or despatch registers. The appellants contended that mere despatch is not sufficient under Section 28 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for actual service. 4. The Revenue claimed the order was served based on a despatch seal dated "1/5", but the absence of despatch registers due to a 10-year lapse was noted. The appellant's representative denied receiving any reminders but acknowledged the correct address. 5. The Revenue's inability to provide proof of service raised doubts about the actual delivery of the order. The appellants argued that without proper service, the appeal filing within 3 months of obtaining a xerox copy was justified. The Consultant highlighted the necessity of compliance with Section 153 for service validity. 6. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the despatch seal and the absence of registered post proof. The Revenue's failure to demonstrate proper service led to the acceptance of the appellants' claim that they were unaware of the order until the recovery letter in 2000. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by remanding the case for re-adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals) on its merits, considering the appeal filing date post obtaining the xerox copy. This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of time limitation, service of the Order-in-Original, proof of service, and compliance with Section 153 of the Customs Act, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal arguments and decisions made by the Tribunal.
|
