9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Commissioner (Appeals) for service of the order dated 1st June 2020. Under such circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be blamed for having sent the order to the earlier address of the Appellant. There has been clear lack of alacrity on behalf of the Appellant, who has not bothered to verify as to whether any order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal preferred at its instance. This Court is of the opinion, that the duty existed, also, upon the Appellant to check if any order was passed in the appeal. In the overall facts and circumstances, the Department did not have any other option and has exercised its due diligence in accordance with the procedure. As the Appellant did not provide an alternate addres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-Original dated 12th September, 2017 (hereinafter 'OIO'). The OIO also imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- and penalty of Rs. 2,71,201/-. In order to avoid the demurrage and detention charges, the Appellant cleared the goods by paying the differential duty and penalty as imposed by said OIO. 5. This order was then challenged by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) vide appeal dated 10th November, 2017. Thereafter, the Appellant had shifted its business premises from the A-12, Plot No. 71/7, Rama Road, Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi to an adjacent building in the same locality. However, a fire accident is stated to have occurred at the relocated premises on 21st October 2018, following which the Appellant once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant had actually appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 16.01.2020 when hearing took place. There is no reason as to why the learned consultant should not have made repeated inquiries from the Office of the Commissioner (Appeals) to find out whether any order had been passed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has however, pointed out that because of covid, the time period stood extended if the limitation fell within 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. The order was passed on 01.06.2020 and therefore, the period of limitation fell within the aforesaid period. The appellant could therefore, have filed the appeal within 90 days from the 28.02.2022. 5. Even though, such a ground has not been taken in the application, yet in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal. The application is, accordingly, rejected. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed." 10. Ms. Vidushi, ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted vehemently that under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner (Appeals) had sent the order to the earlier address of the Appellant, which was never served. Hence, there was no communication of the order. The limitation for filing of the appeal would run only from the date when the order is communicated. Ld. Counsel further submits that even the Counsel did not inform the Appellant of the personal hearing, which he had attended. Finally, it is also argued that during the COVID period, two years of limitation would be liable to be condoned. 11. Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
