9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 737 - HC - CustomsNon-service of order - case of petitioner is that order has not been served to this petitioner so far and therefore they are unable to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid order - HELD THAT - It appears that the respondent has already passed an order-in-original bearing no. 55/2019 dated 5th March, 2019, copy whereof has already been served to the authorized representative of this petitioner namely Sh. Raj Kumar, whose statement has also been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the customs authority. There is no question of issuing any direction to the respondent to serve again order-in-original dated 5th March, 2019 to the petitioner - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Non-serving of the order in original to the petitioner for appeal. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition concerning the non-receipt of the order in original, dated 5th March 2019, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi. The petitioner's counsel argued that despite the order being issued in March 2019, they had not received a copy, hindering their ability to file an appeal. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the authorized representative of the petitioner had acknowledged the order on 6th March 2019, as per Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent emphasized that serving the order again could extend the limitation period for filing an appeal. The court noted that the order had already been served to the authorized representative and directed the respondent to provide a copy of the order to the petitioner. The court left the issue of limitation open, stating that it would be decided independently if the petitioner chose to appeal. This judgment clarifies the obligation to serve orders in original for appeals and the implications on the limitation period for filing appeals. It underscores the importance of timely receipt of legal documents for parties to exercise their rights effectively. The court's decision to provide a copy of the order to the petitioner while keeping the limitation issue open demonstrates a balanced approach to ensure fairness and procedural compliance in legal matters.
|
