2000 (10) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om the records, the appeal against the order, dated 11-1-1994 has been filed on 28-1-2000. As per Sec. 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, an appeal has to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within three months from the date of communication of the order which may be extended by the Commissioner for a further period of three months, if sufficient cause is shown that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. No further extension is permissible. The appellant has, in the appeal, indicated the date of receipt of the order as 20-1-2000 (which is apparently the date of receipt of an additional copy of the Order-in-Original which had been sent to the appellant on request). It is seen from the records that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s in time. He contends that Commissioner (Appeals) had not put the appellants on notice with regard to time bar and hence the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was granted to appellants to explain the delay in the matter. Hence he contends that the matter is required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to grant appellants an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. He also submits that appellants have a strong case on merits and order of absolute confiscation of 22 numbers of gold bars weighing 2565 grams valued at Rs. 7,35,247.61 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and penalty of Rs. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s). Appellants had duly participated in the proceedings before the Addl. Commissioner has Order-in-Original clearly recorded that appellant was represented by an Advocate. The Commissioner has clearly noted that O-I-O has despatched to the appellants by Registered Post and the same had been acknowledged by the postal department on the same date. Therefore, in terms of Section 153 of the Customs Act, despatch through registered post has been considered to be proper services. The burden was on the appellants to discharge that order was never served on them. Such a burden has not been discharged by appellants in this case. They have indiligently brought to the notice of the Office of Addl. Commissioner for a copy of the order for six long year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X