9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the CESTAT, New Delhi s order mentioned by the appellant pertains to another OIO and not for the OIO No.34/AC/1999 dated 29.06.99 - the appellant submitted that they have never received OIO in question and requested for the same, a copy of which was forwarded to them vide letter dated 24.09.09 - the said letter report of the Assistant Commissioner was never supplied to the appellant - No opportunity was given to the appellant to contest the said report. Further, as pleaded by the learned advocate the said report nowhere shows the date of receipt of the impugned order - It also does not disclose as to whether the acknowledgement due, under which the impugned order was sent, stands received back by the Revenue or not - set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 24.09.09. Appellant therefore claims that the OIO was received by them on or around 01.10.09. The matter of receipt of the OIO was clarified by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Porbandar vide his letter dated 01.12.09. As per the said letter, the Original order was dispatched to M/s. Sahil Trends by registered post AD as per the postal registration slip No.5591 dated 14.07.99 as mentioned in the dispatch register Sr.No.2058 dated 14.07.99. As the same has not been received back from the postal authorities, the said OIO therefore stands delivered at the material time. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Porbandar has also produced certified copies of the registration slip and copy of the dispatch register bearing Sr. No.205 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply to the show cause notice indicating their new address. The order-in-original was sent at the old address and as such was never received by them. By relying upon various decisions of the judicial authorities, learned advocate submits that it is the fact of receipt of the impugned order which has to be taken into consideration for the purposes of limitation and not the fact of dispatch of the order. 3. In as much as the said letter report of the Assistant Commissioner was never supplied to the appellant, we agree with the learned advocate that the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. No opportunity was given to the appellant to contest the said report. Further, as pleaded by the learned advocate the said repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
