Appeal dismissed due to limitation; case remitted for further consideration.

The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA on the ground of limitation due to non-receipt of the Order-in-Original by the appellant. An anomaly in the Order-in-Original and compliance with principles of natural justice were raised. The Tribunal found the dismissal on limitation grounds unsustainable as the appeal was filed within the prescribed timeline. The case was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration, with directions to ensure supply of the Show Cause Notice, comply with natural justice principles, and dispose of the matter promptly.

---

---

Issues: Appeal dismissed on the ground of limitation, Non-receipt of Order-in-Original, Anomalous situation in the Order-in-Original, Compliance with principles of natural justice

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, the appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation. The appellant argued that they were not aware of any adjudication proceedings initiated against them regarding the import of smoked rubber sheets, as they were never served with a Show Cause Notice. They claimed that they only learned of the demand and adjudication order through a communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The Order-in-Original was allegedly not received by the appellant, and they promptly informed the authorities about the non-receipt, requesting time for the appeal period. The Revenue could not confirm the receipt of the Order-in-Original, and the date discrepancy in the order was pointed out by the appellant's advocate.

Regarding the Order-in-Original, the appellant highlighted an anomaly where the order was signed on a different date than mentioned in the order. The Revenue could not definitively confirm the receipt of the Order-in-Original by the appellant, emphasizing the need for explicit proof of delivery and service in taxing statutes. The Tribunal noted the submissions made by the appellant's advocate and the efforts to communicate the non-receipt of the order to the authorities, including details of speed post transmission. The dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds was deemed unsustainable, as the appeal was filed within 60 days of the first receipt of the Order-in-Original by the appellants, not breaching the timelines in Section 128 of the Customs Act.

The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration, directing the Jurisdictional Commissioner to ensure the supply of a copy of the Show Cause Notice to the noticee/appellants within a month. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to comply with the principles of natural justice, record the appellant's submissions, and allow them to produce supporting evidence. Due to the age of the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) was urged to dispose of the matter within six months to ensure timely resolution. The appeal was ultimately disposed of with these directions to address the issues raised by the appellant.

---