9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice - relevant date of knowledge - Held that:- The date of receipt of the recovery notice is the date of knowledge i.e. 25 October, 2015, when the appellant received notice of recovery - 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 - Appeal remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), to decide the appeal on merits. Application allowed. - C/RoM No. 50973/2018 in Cus. Appeal No. 50540/2018(DB) - Final Order No. 53336/2018 - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Appellant: Sh. Puneet Bansal, Advocate Respondent: Sh. R. K. Manjhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revenue issued a letter communicating aforesaid Order-in-Original and directing the appellant to deposit the customs duty liability (never received by the appellant). October 23, 2015 The revenue issued another letter directing the appellant to deposit demand of customs duty. October 25, 2015 The aforesaid letter dated October 23, 2015 was received. November 27, 2015 The appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). November 7, 2017 The Commissioner (Appeals) vide its Order-in-Appeal dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the report of the Adjudicating Authority that the Order-in-Original was dispatched by speed post on 12.11.2014, took the starting point of limitation for filing appeal, which was erroneous. The learned Counsel states that they have taken the ground in the appeal that for effective service as required under the provisions of Section 153(a) of the Act, the department is required to have evidence of service/ proof of delivery. Simplicitor evidence of dispatch is not sufficient as held by a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Margra Industries Ltd. Vs. CC -2006 (202) ELT 244 (Tri. LB). In the said judgment, the issue before the larger bench was- Whether dispatch of adjudication order by speed post amounts to a valid service under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rectification application, modifying the final order with consequential benefits. 6. The learned AR for Revenue supported the final order and further states that the appellant is seeking a review of the final order, which is not permissible. The ld. AR further relies on the rulings as follows:- When two views are possible and one view is taken, this Tribunal cannot again in review take another view. CCE, Mumbai vs. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. -2011 (270) ELT 625 (SC). Rectification can be made of mistake apparent on the face of the record. However, if long drawn reasoning is required, the same is beyond the scope of rectification. Commissioner vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Limited -1997 8 SCC 502 When order is passed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
