9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to demonstrate anything, to the submissions made by the Learned Advocate and the Learned Advocate amply demonstrating their bonafides in promptly writing to the concerned agencies, and also enclosing details of speed post transmission. The dismissal of the appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on limitation is not sustainable. In his order, the Commissioner (Appeal) has mentioned that the appeal was filed on 24th July 2013, in respect of the adjudication order dated 27.02.2010 said to be received on 9th July 2013 - it cannot be imputed that the aforesaid appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation. As the appeal has been filed well within 60 days of the said first receipt of the order in original by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No.182/ADDL/CUS/NB/SLG/2010 dated 27.02.2010 was never received at their end and it was only by way of a communication sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Headquarter TAR Cell, vide F No. dated 9th July 2013 asking them for payment of the differential duty of Rs.29,72,987/- confirmed against them in terms of Section 28 (1) of the Customs Act, that they learnt of such a demand and the adjudication order. In pursuance of the non-receipt of the order, the Learned Advocate submits that promptly on 12/07/2013 they had also written to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Tax Arrear Recovery Reward Cell, CC(P), Custom House, Kolkata intimating the fact of non-receipt of any Show Cause Notice in the matter. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned agencies, and also enclosing details of speed post transmission. The dismissal of the appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on limitation is not sustainable. In his order, the Commissioner (Appeal) has mentioned that the appeal was filed on 24th July 2013, in respect of the adjudication order dated 27.02.2010 said to be received on 9th July 2013. I hold that under the circumstances, it cannot be imputed that the aforesaid appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation. As the appeal has been filed well within 60 days of the said first receipt of the order in original by the appellants, the same is not hit by the timelines contained in Section 128 of Customs Act. I therefore, remit the appeal for appropriate decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
