9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in spite of this the Order-in-Original was sent to the old address which was not received by the respondent and finally the respondent received the Order-in-Original only on 25.01.2018 and thereafter filed the appeal before the Commissioner with a delay of 28 days which was condoned by the Commissioner. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the Department did not raise the objection of limitation. Further, the Department has not been able to bring on record any evidence regarding the proof of delivery of the Order-in-Original. There is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) condoning the delay of 28 days - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/20531/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20613/2019 - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on date . The Department also sent the details to various authorities for appropriate clarifications. All the authorities found the imported goods to be fit for home consumption and the appropriate authority had also issued a NOC for the said imports. The Department issued a show-cause notice proposing to (i) confiscate the imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for destruction and (ii) impose penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer in their reply have mentioned that the requisite NOC from FSSAI was furnished along with the lab report from M/s. TUV-SUD and that the date of manufacture and expiry were mentioned on the pallets containing the imported goods and that have abided by all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim of the importer or delayed receipt of Order-in-Original. Further the Commissioner (Appeals) deciding the appeal filed beyond the condonable period has exercised the power in excess of jurisdiction and therefore he has prayed that the order of the Commissioner be set aside. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent justified the impugned order and further submitted that the Order-in-Original No. 460/2016 dated 27.09.2016 was in fact served on the respondent on 25.01.2018. He further submitted that in fact the Order-in-Original was sent to the old address in spite of the fact that the respondent intimated the Department regarding the change of address in the year 2015 and the Department has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the respondent has intimated the change of its address to the Department in the year 2015 and that said letter is also on record. Further the Department was also aware of the change in address and sent the personal hearing notice dated 12.04.2016 to the new address of the respondent but in spite of this the Order-in-Original was sent to the old address which was not received by the respondent and finally the respondent received the Order-in-Original only on 25.01.2018 and thereafter filed the appeal before the Commissioner with a delay of 28 days which was condoned by the Commissioner. Further I find that before the Commissioner (Appeals) the Department did not raise the objection of limitation. Further I find that the Department has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
