9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s efficacy. As in SRK Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) [ 2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ], held that an unsigned order cannot be covered under any provision of law dealing with mistake, defect or omission therein, hence affecting the validity of the order and set aside the same with direction to the Competent Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law. In the present case find that a signed order was subsequently issued on 30/11/2011 whereas the appeal was filed on 16/02/2012 involving a delay of 18 days which is within the condonable period as per proviso to Sec. 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. We, feel that the ends of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case observed that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period and hence rejected the appeal on time-bar. Hence the present appeal. 3. Shri N. Viswanathan, learned Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri N. Satyanarayanan, learned Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 3.1 The learned Advocate submitted that the appellant filed a claim for Rs. 58, 95, 069/- covering the period between October 2009 to May 2010 and the Ld. Original Authority passed an unsigned order no. 14284/2011 dated 25/01/2011. As the copy of the order was provided to them only during January 2012, they filed the statutory appeal against the unsigned order on 16/02/2012 and accepted by the office of the learned 1st appellate authority. The 1st ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f delay at 327 days by the lower appellate authority totally wrong and erroneous. He has prayed for the setting aside of this order and remanding back to the concerning authority for deciding the merit of their claim for the balance amount after granting them a person hearing and render justice. 3.2 The Ld. AR has reiterated the points made in the impugned order. 4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and the Ld. AR for revenue representing the contesting parties. I have also perused the Appeal Papers, and the judgments cited. I find that the issue relates to the appeal before the First Appellate Authority being dismissed as time barred. From the facts of the case it is seen that the appellant received OIO 14284/2011 dated 25.01/2011 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
