TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered post to the above mentioned address for service upon Shri R. Badrinarayanan, Managing Director. Since the order could not be served upon the appellants at the above address, it was displayed on the notice board of Custom House in the year 2007. The appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 15-4-2009. 2. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that appellant-company was registered at Ameerpet Hyderabad in the year 1994-95; shifted to Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda address in the year 1997; subsequently shifted to Diamond House Panjagutta in 2002 and thereafter the company shifted to Srinagar colony, Hyderabad. He submits that Srinagar colony address of the company was very much available with the department as seen from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only by way of abundant caution. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and find that the Srinagar colony address of the appellant company was available with the department. Shri Badrinarayanan was the Managing Director available at the Srinagar colony address as on the date when the impugned order was passed and issued. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order was tendered to the appropriate address namely the last known address of the company at Srinagar colony. Hyderabad. In these circumstances, display of the order on the notice board in terms of Section 153(b) is not sufficient as the department has not attempted to serve or served the order upon the last known address of the company. In these circumstances, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der which the imports in the present case were made. Although the appellant company had throughout been stating before the adjudicating authority that the export obligation had been fulfilled, they had not produced such endorsement on the advance Licences prior to the passing of the impugned order and they have obtained these endorsements only in Dec 08/Jan 09. Interest of justice requires that the case be decided afresh by the Commissioner in the light of the communications received in Dec 08 and Jan 09 from the office of the JDGFT. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the case insofar it relates to the appellant company to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication in the light of the EODCs granted by the JDGFT. He shall p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|