9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dul Rehman were penalized under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. Revenue was also pursuing the matter by way of prosecution in the Court of Law. We find that the Order-in-Original was passed on 27-2-2004. However, the appellants filed the appeals only in the year 2006. The matter came up before the Tribunal for hearing on 22nd September, 2006. Since there was inordinate delay of 829 days in filing the appeals, the appellants were directed to file COD application along with the affidavit. The learned Departmental Representative was also asked to report proof of service of the Adjudication order by the adjudication section in the Commissionerate office. 3. It is stated by Shri Mohd Osman that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal. In view of the inordinate delay he was asked to file the COD application and to file his affidavit. In the affidavit, he stated that he received the Order-in-Original along with letter dated 6-3-2006 by Registered post only on 9-3-2006. He has stated that if the Adjudication order of the Respondent had been served on him earlier, he would have COD application only preferred the appeal in time. Therefore, he stated that there was no delay in filing the appeal and he is filing the COD application only in compliance of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore he requested the Tribunal to condone the delay in filling his appeal No. C/245/2006 in the interest of justice. The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the affidavit will be filed by 7-9-2007. 2. Post the applications for hearing on 17-9-2007. Finally the matter came up for hearing before this Bench on 28-11-2007. 4. Mr. Anand Seshu, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR for the Revenue. 5. We heard both the sides and perused a the records. In these cases, the Adjudication Order was issued in the year 2004. The date of the impugned order is 27-2-2004. However the appellants came in appeals before this Tribunal only in the year 2006. They were advised to file COD applications. In their affidavit, they have stated that they came to know about the impugned order only when the Departmental authority forced them to pay the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Office and the letter appears to be fabricated. In any case, we find that as far as the condonation of delay is concerned, we have only to decide whether the appellants had actually received the impugned order and to examine whether there is any justifiable reason for delay in filing the appeals. We find that the Department is not in a position to produce the Acknowledgment Due card. Therefore we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants as a special case keeping in view that the Special Court for Economic Offences had already acquitted both the appellants. No purpose would serve by going deep into the authenticity of the letter produced by the appellants before the Circuit Bench. Therefore as a special case, in the absen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
