9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (T) [Order per : T. K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -1. The Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Hyderabad passed the Order-in-Original No. 9/2004, dated 27-2-2004 confiscating Gold weighing 9915.25 gm, valued at Rs. 45,47,500/- under Sections 111(m) (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, two appellants in the present appeals, namely Mohd. Osman and Abdul Rehman were penalized under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. Revenue was also pursuing the matter by way of prosecution in the Court of Law. We find that the Order-in-Original was passed on 27-2-2004. However, the appellants filed the appeals only in the year 2006. The matter came up before the Tribunal for hearing on 22nd September, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter dated 6-3-2006 sent the impugned order dated 27-2-2004, passed by Mrs. Sreela Ghosh, Commissioner and he was directed to pay the penalty amount of Rs. 10 lakhs immediately. He has staled that he was never served with the order and he was not aware of the order until he received the same along with the letter dated 6-3-2003. He stated that consequent to the receipt of the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal. In view of the inordinate delay he was asked to file the COD application and to file his affidavit. In the affidavit, he stated that he received the Order-in-Original along with letter dated 6-3-2006 by Registered post only on 9-3-2006. He has stated that if the Adjudication order of the Respondent had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e information was obtained to the effect that the letter was sent back. The Revenue will also ascertain from its record, whether the letter was received back or not. The Revenue is directed to file a short affidavit in relation to the despatch of the impugned order to the applicant and about its service. The learned Authorized Representative for the Department states that the affidavit will be filed by 7-9-2007. 2. Post the applications for hearing on 17-9-2007." Finally the matter came up for hearing before this Bench on 28-11-2007. 4. Mr. Anand Seshu, the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR for the Revenue. 5. We heard both the sides and perused a the records. In these case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the address in the envelop is not correct because it does not have any House number. So the letter had been sent back to the sender on 23-4-2004. There were doubts about the authenticity of the letter and the Circuit Bench ordered the Department to make an enquiry arid file their affidavit. The Departmental enquiry reveals that the said letter was not given by the Post Office and the letter appears to be fabricated. In any case, we find that as far as the condonation of delay is concerned, we have only to decide whether the appellants had actually received the impugned order and to examine whether there is any justifiable reason for delay in filing the appeals. We find that the Department is not in a position to produce the Acknowledgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
