9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment by producing the acknowledgment signed in proof of the receipt though the signature on the acknowledgment is disputed by the appellant. Appellant also produced the copy of the passport to show that at the relevant time he was not in India. Appellant may not be in India but his agent on his behalf can receive the copy of the order and in law it will be deemed to be the service on the appellant. The law cited by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the case whereas the law cited by the AR is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The present appeal is barred by time as the same has been filed after the expiry of more than 19 years and that too without seeking condonation - Appeal dismissed. - C/STAY/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m as he did not receive the copy of it. He further stated that on 30.12.2013 his brother has informed him that the Tahasildar has issued a Sale Notice of Immovable Property for realizing the penalty amount. Thereafter he obtained the copy of the order from the advocate of another accused on 03.01.2014 and then on 17.01.2014 he filed the instant appeal which is in time from the date of the receipt of the impugned order. 4. Vide Order dated 14.11.2014, the learned AR has been given time to verify the contents of the affidavit filed by the appellant. Thereafter vide letter dated 03.08.2015 the learned AR submitted that the impugned order No. S.14/46/93 Pr. Cus. dated 28/04/1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin was sent by RPAD and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of receipt of the copy of the impugned order. In support of this she relied upon the following case laws: a) Collector of C.E Vs. Rajasthan State Chemical Works 1989 (40) E.L.T. 418 (Tri.) b) Margra Industries Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi 2006 (202) E.L.T. 244 (Tri.) c) Classic Marble Vs. CC (Import), Mumbai 2009 (245) E.L.T. 679 (Tri.-Mum.) d) Qualimax Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2010 (257) E.L.T. 42 (Del.) e) Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2012 (279) E.L.T. 353 (Bom.) f) Flower and Tissue India Ltd. Vs. CC, Jaipur 2014 (309) E.L.T. 505 (Tri.-Del.) 7. On the other hand learned AR cited the case of V. Raja Kumari Vs. P. Subbarama Naidu Anr, Appeal (Crl) 887/1999, order dated 02.11.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994 on the appellant has been proved by the Department by producing the acknowledgment signed in proof of the receipt though the signature on the acknowledgment is disputed by the appellant. Appellant also produced the copy of the passport to show that at the relevant time he was not in India. Appellant may not be in India but his agent on his behalf can receive the copy of the order and in law it will be deemed to be the service on the appellant. The law cited by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the case whereas the law cited by the AR is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently I am of the considered opinion that the present appeal is barred by time as the same has been filed after the expiry of mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
