9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 95 - AT - CustomsAppeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - period of limitation - Proof of delivery or order in original - Held that - In the acknowledgement card produced by the department, reference No. is given as 56/13/2001 and on top of the acknowledgement card it is also written EPCG in capitals, the date of the letter is indicated as 14/09. This would show that the reference No. and the date on order-in-original and also the fact that it relates to EPCG are available in the acknowledgement card. We also could make out that the round stamp put on the acknowledgement card is of the appellant s company. It cannot be said that the Post Master has given contrary reports. When the appellants made enquiries, they had asked for a reference under OC No. 4066/2011 and sought information as to whether that letter has been delivered. The postal department also in their records would enter reference No. and the date as mentioned in the acknowledgement card or on the envelope and therefore in the records of the Postal Department, OC No. could not have been found. Therefore, the Post Master s report came favorable to the appellant. - However, the acknowledgement card would show the correct reference No and date since that is written by the Departmental Officers who had sent the letter. In view of the above, we cannot say that the letter issued by the Post Master is helpful to the appellant and we have to go by the acknowledgement card for determining whether the appellants have received the order-in-original or not. Therefore Commissioner s finding that appeal has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed as to be upheld. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal as time-barred. 2. Verification of delivery of order-in-original. 3. Acceptance of acknowledgment copy. 4. Request to decide on merits despite time bar. 5. Commissioner's decision and Supreme Court precedent. Issue 1: Dismissal of appeal as time-barred The appellant's appeal was dismissed as time-barred, citing it was beyond the condonable period. The Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement and proceeded to address the appeal directly due to the narrow scope of the issue. Issue 2: Verification of delivery of order-in-original The appellant claimed they did not receive the order-in-original, citing a letter from the Postmaster stating the specific letter was not delivered. However, the Commissioner observed that the order had been delivered based on verification with jurisdictional officers and submission of acknowledgment with the company's rubber stamp. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's finding based on the acknowledgment card's details. Issue 3: Acceptance of acknowledgment copy The acknowledgment copy submitted by lower authorities, lacking a date of receipt and identifiable signatory, was contested by the appellant. However, the Tribunal found the reference number, date, and EPCG details on the acknowledgment card sufficient to establish delivery, despite the absence of OC No. 4066/2011. Issue 4: Request to decide on merits despite time bar The lower authorities recommended deciding the appeal on merits due to the submission of EODC certificates for EPCG licenses. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have condoned the appeal delay based on the Supreme Court precedent in Singh Enterprises, thus upholding the time bar decision. Issue 5: Commissioner's decision and Supreme Court precedent The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not overlook the appeal's time bar to delve into the case's merits, as per the ruling in Singh Enterprises by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the COD application, stay petition, and the appeal itself, finding no merit in the appellant's submissions. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning for each aspect of the case.
|
