9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have not received the Order-in-Original. Then, the burden is on the department to establish that the order was communicated / served on the appellant. The word used in section 128 as well as 153 is communication of the decision, summons and notices. By merely sending a copy of the Order in Original by registered / speed post, the department cannot wash of their hands when they are duty bound to serve the same on the appellant. The department ought to have tracked the consignment and made sure that it has been delivered to the addressee. They can obtain a copy of the same from the website after tracking the consignment and keep the same in the file in the same manner they maintain dispatch register. This would be useful to prove that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared before the adjudicating authority and filed written submissions also. The matter also involved the issue as to whether DRI has powers to issue show cause notice. On this issue, a decision was passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CC Vs Sayed Ali - 2011 (265) ELT 17 (SC). The Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.) is another decision. Pursuant to this and other decisions there were directions by department to keep such matters pending in call book. The appellants did not further receive any intimation from adjudicating authority after the personal hearing. Thereafter, appellant received a letter on 28.12.2018 stating that Order-in-Original has been passed on 22.06.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service of the order was discussed. 3. Ld. A.R Ms. Sridevi Taritla appeared and argued for the department. She strongly opposed the grounds raised by the Ld. Counsel for appellant and adverted to page 6 7 of the impugned order. It is submitted by her that as per the dispatch register maintained by the department, the Order-in-Original was dispatched to the address of the appellant on 12.07.2016. As per Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962 the order has been sufficiently served on the appellant and therefore the plea of the appellant that they did not receive the order is factually wrong. It is also argued by her that when the order is sent by registered post it is to be presumed that the same is served on the addressee. She contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en delivered to the addressee. They can obtain a copy of the same from the website after tracking the consignment and keep the same in the file in the same manner they maintain dispatch register. This would be useful to prove that the Order in Original is served upon the addressee. The decision cited by the ld. Counsel also supports the case of the appellant. 6. It is also pertinent to note that in the present case, on merits, the issue also involves whether DRI has powers to issue show cause notice or not. There were many litigations pending before various courts with regard to the said judgment. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs UOI 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.) had held that DRI has no powers to issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
