9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condoned on his claim that he never received the copy of original order? - Held that: - when the petitioner has failed to intimate the change of address, the Department cannot be faulted for not having able to serve the order on the petitioner and they having fully followed the procedure under section 153 of the Act - the respondent is fully justified in rejecting the appeal. Alternative remedy of appeal before the CEGAT - Held that: - the appeal could have been filed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However the petitioner did not prefer any appeal, but chose to file this Writ Petition - one more ground to reject the relief sought for. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been noted in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Further in the counter affidavit, this fact has been elaborately stated. Furthermore, the respondents would add that the copy of the order was also sent to the counsel, because the petitioner was represented by a Counsel before the Adjudicating Authority and the Counsel has received the order. Though this may not be the sole reason for computing the limitation, yet, it can be taken for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that there is reasonable presumption that the petitioner would have come to know about the order passed. One more factor is that during relevant point of time, there were several such imports and all were contested by filing appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace of business from the original place, no intimation as regards such shifting was ever communicated to the respondents for the purpose of communication of the orders. The said fact is not in dispute. 4. In the said circumstances, when the order dated 11.5.2004 was duly forwarded to the address which was originally placed before the respondents by the petitioner, and if the communication of the said order did not reach the petitioner, because of non-intimation of the change of address, the petitioner is to be only blamed. 5. In such circumstances, I do not find any scope to continue the interim stay inasmuch as the filing of the appeal before the first respondent cannot be held to be within time as claimed by the petitioner. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
