9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than 10 years cannot be accepted. Modes of service provided in Section 153 are alternate methods by which attempts can be made to serve an order or decision under the Customs Act. Therefore, service by any of the modes is sufficient for the purposes of the said section. Viewed in this perspective, the service has been completed in the instant case way back in 2002. If the appellant had changed the address, it was his duty to inform the change of address to the respondent which he has not done. On the other hand, it is evident that the appellant was absconding in view of the COFEPOSA detention order issued against him and the proclamation made for his appearance by canceling the ball. In other words, the appellant was eluding the law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived the impugned order due to change in address. As he had changed his residence from Mumbai to Pune, he came to know of the order only in 2012. He had requested the department vide letter dated 01/12/2012 to inform him of the status of the case and vide letter dated 25/10/2012, the respondent department informed that the case has been adjudicated vide the impugned order under the cover of a letter dated 25/10/2012. Inasmuch as the service of the order is not complete and the same has been done only in October 2002, the appeal cannot be considered as time barred. 3. The Revenue was asked to bring evidence to show that the service has been completed. In reply thereto, the Revenue has submitted documents dated 07/03/2002 which indicates t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rviced in the above manner, by affixing it on the notice board of the Customs House. In the instant case, we have seen from the records produced by the Revenue that the order was sent by registered post and it came back undelivered and thereafter, it was tried to be served by sending a person and the same also could not be done because the appellant was absconding. It is also seen from the records that the order was displayed on the notice board. Therefore the service of the order, as envisaged under Section 153 of the Customs Act, had been completed by way back in June 2002. Therefore the plea of the appellant that he got the order only in October 2012 after a gap of more than 10 years cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
