9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Centre. Unfortunately, the Department did not have the returned cover itself. Therefore, the question as to whether there was another endorsement to the effect "intimation delivered" or not is not known. From the mere endorsement "unclaimed", it cannot be concluded whether the intimation was delivered or not. Unless both endorsements go together, the presumption of service cannot be made. Moreov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is filed by the Assessee under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the order of the Tribunal, refusing to condone the delay of 546 days in filing the appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. T.Sundaranathan , learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.P.Srinivas , learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. 3. As against the Order in Original dated 28.5.2009, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. On the basis of the said letter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the delay was not properly explained. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application. 6. It is seen from the Order in Original that the same was directed against several individuals, including the exporter. The matter related to Duty Drawback. The appellant herein was the Customs House Agent, whose services wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant in any other manner. This is despite the fact that under Section 153(b) of the Act, there is a provision for affixure of the Order on the Notice Board of the Customs House. It is not a case of the Department that there was affixure. 9. Since these aspects were not taken into account by the Tribunal, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal is dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
