9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be set aside. 2.1 Today when the matter came up for hearing before this court, Ld. Advocate Shri. T. R. Ramesh appearing on behalf of the assessee/appellant pointed out that the impugned Demand Notice was not properly addressed and therefore, the same was never received by the appellant and consequently, the service by affixture in the Notice Board that too after the lapse of six months. 2.2 He elaborated the facts that the assessee-appellant had imported 13MTs of Ammonium Persulphate, 3MTs of Sodium Persulphate and 2.50 MTs of Potasium Persulphate from China vide Bill of Entry No. 539810 dated 28.08.2007. The Revenue was of the view that the above import attracted Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) as per Notification No. 96/2007 dated 29.08.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emarked for non-service as "ID&DL" on all the dates (which was explained by the Ld. Advocate for the assessee as Identified and Door Locked). 3.2 Ld. AR also submitted that the Order-in-Original also did not mention the Door Number i.e., "12/1" but still the assessee has received it without questioning and filed appeals. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through the judgements/Orders referred to during the course of arguments. 5.1 On a perusal of the copy of the Bill of Entry dated 28.08.2007 placed on record we find the address of the assessee/importer as under : "INDO ORGANIC CHEMICAL CORPORATION : SUIT NO 3, IST FLOOR, 12/1 EKAMBAR -ESWARAR STREET, MUTHA MARKET, PARK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Nor is the assessee disputing the remarks of the postal authorities who have 'identified' but could not deliver because of 'door lock'. These facts coupled with the fact that the appellant has nowhere disputed the very liability to ADD makes it all the more clear that the assessee is making hue and cry unnecessarily. Further, as noted by us hereinabove, the assessee itself has made omission and now is saying that it cannot accept omission made by Revenue. Viewed from this angle, the decisions/Orders relied upon by the Ld. Advocate are distinguishable. 6. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the reasons attributed for non-service by the appellant is not acceptable and hence, we do not intend to interfere with the Order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
