9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered by the officers for communicating with the importer in any proceedings. In the present case, the dispatch of the impugned order to the known address of the appellant and its return have been evidenced and recorded in the written submissions of Revenue. The display in the Notice Board is evidenced in the impugned order, wherein copy was marked to the Notice Board also. While we note that the Revenue could not produce the details of the exact date of display, we also take note that we are dealing with 13 years’old case. Here, it is necessary to note that large number of communications in the form of notices, orders were sent to the various assessees by the Department. The standard legal requirements are generally adopted for d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uperintendent, Recovery Section to pay the adjudicated dues. Thereafter, the applicant has been consistently following up with the jurisdictional Customs Authorities to get a copy of the order dated 25.06.2004. Finally, they could get a certified copy only on 17.01.2017 and thereafter they filed this appeal. 3. The case of the applicant is that they neither received the letter for personal hearing nor the final order. They had two business addresses, one at Panjabi Bagh and the other at Sadar Bazar. They have changed their address from Sadar Bazar to Punjabi Bagh and intimated the Department in September, 2003 itself. The Revenue did not take note of this change in address and continued to wrongly send the communications to the earlier a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diligence in pursuing the pending matter with Revenue. Admittedly, the appellants were having different addresses and there is no evidence to indicate that they have intimated the Department regarding change of address. The letter now produced is an un-signed print out with no evidence of service to the concerned officers. It is also submitted that a personal hearing notice was in fact received by the proprietor in his address at M-282, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Pashim Vihar, New Delhi-63. 6. Regarding the procedure to be followed under Section 153, ld. AR submitted that the Revenue has taken all the required steps in dispatching the order. Since the appellant did not make alternate arrangements to receive the letters and did not intimate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rived of an appellate remedy and to get an order on merit only on the ground that there was a delay in preferring the appeal. 8. While this is general principle in law, in the present appeal where there is a delay of more than 12 years, it is necessary for us to examine the background and facts more carefully. It is to be noted that the appellant in the present case is an importer. Unlike the assessee for Central Excise and Service Tax, the importers are not required to register their address etc. with the Department. In other words, there is no registered address as an assessee with the department. The declarations made in the bill of entry and thereafter any correspondence will be considered by the officers for communicating with the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Sadar Bazar address at that time. Hence, without going into the merits of the contention about mode of service, we note that the Revenue could not serve the order in the known address in absence of the appellant there. 10. The appellants also contested the plea on the display of the order in the notice board as not evidenced by the records. Admittedly, we are dealing with a 13 years old order. The impugned order itself clearly mentions about the copy to the Notice Board, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The dispute is with actual reference to the display in the Notice Board. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in K. Rama Rao 1983 (14) ELR 2267 (Madras). We note in the said case, the Hon ble High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is subject matter of dispute, happened in 1997. The case was finally adjudicated in 2004. The appellant did file a written reply on 28.07.2003 through their Advocate. Thereafter, personal hearing was fixed on various occasions 22.12.2003, 28.01.2004, 13.04.2004 and 26.05.2004. In fact, with reference to first personal hearing notice, the appellant vide their letter dated 15.12.2003 informed that their counsel was in USA and the next personal hearing may be fixed in the last week of Jan. 2004. The personal hearing was accordingly fixed. In fact, as already noted that even a letter was sent to the proprietor of the appellant firm in his Paschim Vihar address on 11.09.2003. For this a reply has been sent by the appellant stating that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
