9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. ROM application allowed. - C/ROM/51000/2018, Appeal No. C/57641/2013-(CU) DB - MO/50241/2019-CU[DB] - Dated:- 25-3-2019 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Kumar Vikram, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.K. Majhi, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per Anil Choudhary: 1. The appellant assessee is proprietor of Chopco Fashions, have filed the present application for rectification of mistakes in Final Order No. C/A/51727/2018-CU[DB] dated 20.04.2018, by which the COD application alongwith the appeal were dismissed. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/ applicant is that though they had raised the ground that the computation of period of limitation by Registry of this Hon ble Tribunal was erroneous and their appeal was filed in time. However, this Tribunal erred in observing that there is a delay in filing the appeal of about six years, 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: Dates Events ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. 21.05.2013 Appellant filed a criminal complaint at Police Station, Vivek Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi against his brother-in-law Sh. Lokesh Chander Chopra and his brother Sh. Sunil Kumar, for registration of FIR, for commission of offence of cheating, forgery and fraud by falsely using the name of the appellant in opening a fictitious firm in the name and style of M/s Chopco Fashion. 24.05.2013 The appellant well in time i.e. before the expiry of 3 months from 25.02.2013 (date of knowledge) filed the Appeal No. 57641 of 2013 along with the Stay Application before this Hon ble Tribunal. 15.09.2014 The Tribunal passed an interim order No. 833/2014 directing the appellant to explain the delay in filing the present appeal. 20.10.2014 This Tribunal vide Order dated 20.10.2014 dismissed the appeal due to non-filing of the condonation of delay application as barred by limitation alongwith the dismissal of stay application. 05.12.2014 The appellant through some other counsel filed an Applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the chronological events, was thereafter adjourned to 02.02.2017. 02.02.2017 Vide Final Order dated 02.02.2017, the Hon ble Tribunal dismissed the COD application i.e. C/COD/50808/2016 alongwith the Appeal No. C/57641/2013 of the appellant. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that earlier vide order dated 20.10.2014 the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay due to non-filing of the COD application and now a fresh application for COD has been filed. Therefore, dismissed the same on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. 15.07.2017 The appellant filed Customs Appeal No. 47 of 2017 before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi against the Oder dated 02.02.2017 01.02.2018 The Hon ble High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the issue of limitation and directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 27.02.2018. 27.02.2018 The matter was adjourned on the request of the appellant for change of counsel. 13.03.2018 The undersigned counsel was appoin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. The appellant in support of the same relies on the following judgements: i. Regent Overseas Pvt Ltd. Vs. UOI 2017 (6) GSTL 15 (Guj) ii. Margra Industries Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi 2006 (202) ELT 244 iii. Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI 2012 (26) STR 299 (Bom) iv. Sunrise Industries Corp. vs. CCE 2013 (29) STR 447 v. ADF Foods Ltd. vs. CCE 2015 (325) ELT 922 vi. S.A. Engineering Works vs. CCE, Vadodara-II 2013 (295) ELT 236 vii. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I 2014 (33) STR 332 (Tri. Del) In the case of Margra Industries, the issue before the larger bench was- Whether dispatch of adjudication order by speed post amounts to a valid service under section 153(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, in absence of proof of actual delivery of the speed post. Whether simultaneous affixing of the order on the notice board while dispatching it by speed post is sufficient compliance of Section 153(b) of the Customs Act. The Larger Bench answered the questions under reference as under:- a) Dispatch of the adjudication order by speed post/ registered post would not amount to a valid service in absence of proof of actual delivery of the speed post. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
