9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned orders and appeals to be filed. Further, it is evident from the record that appellant has not slept over the case. After hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals), they have been making enquiries from time to time regarding status of their appeals, particularly vide letters dated 15.11.2018 and 20.05.2019. Further, it is evident from the record that the appellant traced the impugned orders on 21.07.2019. There is reasonable cause for the delay in preferring these appeals which have been properly explained - COD application allowed. - Customs Appeal Nos. 52491 to 52529 of 2019, Customs Appeal Nos. 52556 to 52582 of 2019, Customs Appeal Nos. 52620 to 52630 of 2019, Customs Appeal Nos. 52655 to 52669 of 2019 - MISC. ORDER NOS. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... problems, being pre-occupied, Shri Mahipal forgot to inform the other senior Officer and the competent authority about the receipt of the impugned orders. Subsequently, when the management contacted him in July, 2019 enquiring about the orders and customs documents, Shri Mahipal pointed out the location of such orders and thereafter the appellant company arranged to file the appeals resulting into delay as aforementioned. According to the appellant, they could find the orders in the old almirah on 21.01.2019 and thereafter they have been able to file the appeals. 3. Learned Counsel further urges that it is not that the appellant had slept over the matter after hearing of some of their appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of transaction value, have been decided in favour of the importers by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd., vs. CCE ST, Noida -2017 (7) GSTL 82 (Tri. All.), which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, learned Counsel submitted that the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and prays that delay may be condoned and appeals admitted for hearing. 4. Opposing the condonation of delay applications, learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the appellant states that admittedly the impugned orders were served in normal course, say within three weeks of despatch, as per affidavit of the ex-employee of the appellant Shri Mahipal. Thus, apparently it is a case of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay application. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the case laws relied upon by the Revenue are not applicable in the facts of these appeals as facts in those appeals relied upon by the Revenue, are not obtained in these appeals. Further, we find that the delay is apparently attributable to the incident of theft which occurred in the first week of February, 2019 wherein the Supervisor Shri Mahipal was also involved, and he was the key person who has received the orders on behalf of the appellant company. Further, due to this incident there was disturbance in the normal functioning of the office of the appellant and from 02.02.2019 Shri Mahipal suddenly left the job without any notice period and without informing any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
