TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal emphasizes export obligations, legal notice service, and timelines in appeal process.</h1> <h3>M/s. Himachal Join Venture Versus Commissioner of Customs, NEW DELHI</h3> M/s. Himachal Join Venture Versus Commissioner of Customs, NEW DELHI - TMI Issues:1. Compliance with export obligation under EPCG License.2. Service of Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original.3. Appeal process and plea of limitation.Compliance with export obligation under EPCG License:The appellant was awarded a contract for civil and hydro mechanical works and imported machinery under an EPCG License. The Department observed non-compliance with the export obligation, leading to a show cause notice proposing penalties. The appellant argued non-receipt of the notice and Order-in-Original, emphasizing the technical grounds of service and the lack of proof of delivery. However, the Tribunal found evidence contradicting the appellant's claim of non-receipt, noting correspondence acknowledging the notice and order. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's responsibility to fulfill obligations and remanded the matter for further consideration.Service of Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original:The appellant contested the service of the Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original, citing lack of proof and incorrect address usage. The Department accused the appellant of intentional avoidance and habitual default. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Department's evidence of service, emphasizing the importance of proper service under the Customs Act. The Tribunal highlighted the need for clear evidence of communication and remanded the case back for proper consideration.Appeal process and plea of limitation:The appellant raised a plea of limitation due to delayed receipt of the Order-in-Original. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court ruling setting a 90-day limit for appeal delays. Despite finding no fault in the original order, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a rehearing, allowing for a 28-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal stressed adherence to legal timelines and due process in the appeal proceedings.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the original order, allowing the appeal by remanding the case for further review. The judgment emphasized the importance of fulfilling export obligations, proper service of legal notices, and adherence to legal timelines in appeal processes.
TaxTMI 