TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was liable to be rejected as time-barred on the basis of the date of despatch of the order instead of the date of communication or service; (ii) Whether disposal of the appeal without affording a personal hearing, despite the dispute on limitation, violated principles of natural justice.
Issue (i): Whether the appeal was liable to be rejected as time-barred on the basis of the date of despatch of the order instead of the date of communication or service.
Analysis: The limitation under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 runs from the date of communication of the order. The expression "communication" was construed as service of the order, not merely its despatch. Since the record did not establish the actual date on which the order was served on the appellant or its agent, the finding of delay could not be sustained on the existing material.
Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal as time-barred was not justified on the present record.
Issue (ii): Whether disposal of the appeal without affording a personal hearing, despite the dispute on limitation, violated principles of natural justice.
Analysis: The appellant had specifically contested the plea of limitation and disputed the date of receipt of the order. In such circumstances, the absence of any material showing waiver of hearing rendered the summary disposal improper. Where the foundational facts regarding limitation were in dispute, denial of hearing caused procedural prejudice and required reconsideration.
Conclusion: The order was vitiated for breach of natural justice.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision after hearing the appellant and determining limitation with reference to the date of service of the order.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of limitation in appeal, "communication" means service of the order, and where the date of service is disputed and no waiver of hearing is shown, an adverse order passed without hearing cannot stand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
