9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led application for condonation of delay of 260 days. 2. The Learned counsel submits that order in appeal was passed on 14.10.14 and they have not received the order till date. They came to know from Arrears Recovery Cell of Customs of Tuticorin letter dt.25.6.2015 where the Department sought for recovery of confirmed dues. Subsequently, they came to know that Order in appeal was passed and they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not received any copy of the order from S.Chandrasekaran, Advocate and he is not authorized by the Appellant. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to issue any certified copy and directed us to obtain a copy from S.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, since he has not authorized a copy of the order from Arrears Recovery Cell by email dt.13.8.2015 (page 77) requested to Condone the Delay. 3. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original OIA till date. On perusal of the postal acknowledgement, we find that the address of the Appellant is correctly written and there is no change in the address. But the letter has been returned as "unclaimed". On receipt of the recovery notice, the Appellant has immediately taken steps with the Commissioner (Appeals) asking for a certified copy. We find that the Superintendent of (Appeals-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned a copy of the impugned order through Recovery Cell by email copy dt.13.8.15. We also find that Section 153 of the Customs Act existed during the period in dispute. On perusal of the Customs Act, we find that there is no provision to order authorized person. Considering the background of the case and also considering the nature of the dispute involved, the condonation of the delay is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
