1987 (6) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....firm filed an affidavit along with the application for C.O.D. stating that he was sick from 14-12-1983 to 13-1-1984, as a result of which he could not file the appeal in time. He also submitted a medical certificate in support of his application. He has prayed that the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal may be condoned by the Tribunal. We heard the application for C.O.D. first and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Thereafter the appeal was taken up for hearing. 2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri A. Ghosh, Consultant stated that a copy of the order-in-original was received by the appellants in the second week of July 1983. They filed appeal against that order before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) on 17-8-1983. The Collector....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut the order-in-original of the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claim, it was entirely the responsibility of the appellants themselves and the Custom House could not be held responsible for the same. In view of the above position, the Collector (Appeals) correctly rejected the first appeal as time-barred as the appeal before him was not filed within the statutory period of three months from the date of communication of the order-in-original. 4. We have considered the arguments of both sides and have also carefully gone through the records of the case. We find that in their letter dated 25-10-79 addressed to the Assistant Collector. For Appraising Refund Sec., Custom House, Calcutta, the appellants authorised M/s. Sheikh and Pand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he refund order in respect of the consignment in question. The letter also requested the Assistant Collector to correspondence with M/s. Sheikh and Pandit direct and the appellants held themselves responsible for all their action in this regard. In view of this letter of authorisation, action of the Custom House in communicating the order-in-original to M/s. Sheikh and Pandit was perfectly in order and in accordance with the instructions of the appellants themselves. We find that copy of the order-in-original dated 30-1-1981 was duty forwarded to M/s. Sheikh and Pandit, the authorised agent of the appellants. It is not the case of appellants that M/s. Sheikh and Pandit did not receive the copy of the order-in-original. If after receipt of o....