9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Customs - Delay of 66 days filling appeal before before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II)/first respondent - as argued impugned order was sent to old address of the petitioner company, as the petitioner was unaware of the same, he failed to file the appeal in time - recovery of drawback for exported goods, interest, and penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the reason assigned by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gautham Ram Vittal For the Respondents : Mr. R. P. Pragadish, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER Challenging the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr.R.P.Pragadish, learned Senior Standing Counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over the said order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent/Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), with a delay of 66 days and the same was rejected vide order dated 02.04.2024, on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the limitation period. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing the appeal is that the petitioner was unaware of the impugned order since it was sent to its old address. In view of the settled proposition of law that when cause for substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should be given due weightage, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 66 days in filing the Appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
