9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) was erroneous, and their appeal was filed in time. However, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in observing that there is a delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of 60 days and further more than 90 days and accordingly for want of powers to condone, it dismissed the appeal. The ld. Counsel has taken us to the relevant dates and facts which are borne on the records as follows: LIST OF DATES April 7, 2005 The appellant received EPCG licence allowing import of capital goods at concessional rate of duty. May 27, 2014 The revenue issued Show Cause Notice proposing to raise demand of customs duty owing to non-fulfilment of export obligation. June 6, 2014 The appellant furnished reply to Show Cause Notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctober 25, 2015. Thereafter, the appellant by their letter submitted a reply to the recovery notice stating that they have received the order recently and they intend to file the appeal. Thereafter, such appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.11.2015. Thus, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the period of limitation i.e. 60 days from the date of knowledge or receipt of order being October 25, 2015. However, in the grounds of appeal, they made a categorical averment that the calculation of period of limitation from the date of dispatch of the order by the Department, sometime in November 2014, and as per the report of the Adjudicating Authority that the Order-in-Original was dispatched by speed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation and also in ignoring the ruling of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal, which had a binding effect on the Division Bench. Further, in the final order, there is no discussion, distinguishing the Larger Bench ruling in Margra Industries Ltd. (supra). The learned Counsel also states that the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur-2018 (221) ELT 163 is misplaced as there was no such question with regard to computation of the period of limitation involved nor was the question of dispute of the service of the order involved. 5. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel prays for allowing the rectification application, modifying the final order with consequential benefits. 6. The learned AR for Revenue supported the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed notice of recovery. Further, following the Larger Bench ruling in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. (supra), we hold that there was no proper service of the order-in-original on the appellant, as required under the provisions of Section 153(a). We further hold that from the date of knowledge, the appeal filed by the appellant before the commission appeals on 27 November 2015, was within time as the same is within 60 days from 25 October 2015. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order in appeal and allow the appeal by way of remand to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), to decide the appeal on merits, after hearing the appellant and passing an order in accordance with law. 9. Thus, this application stands allowed. Consequently, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
