2000 (11) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondents. [Order]. - This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22/28-4-98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The brief facts of this case are that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Units, New Delhi passed an order dated 6-3-96 in which he confiscated the Car imported by the appellant under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r on 24-6-97. In view of these facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal under Section 128 as time barred. 3. The present appeal is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri Ramakant Gaur, Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.C. Sankla, JDR for the Respondent. The ld. Advocate for the appellant referred to photocopy of the Order-in-Original dated 6-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant was not furnished to her. It is contended that since the appeal has been filed more than 1½ years after the date of Order-in-Original, the onus is entirely on the appellant to establish the particular date on which the order was received by her. Since this onus, in the submission of ld. JDR, has not been discharged by the appellant, the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly ....