2009 (5) TMI 727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itted as follows : (i)      In this case, the appellant, M/s. ITI Ltd. requested for speaking order from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs ICD, Whitefield, Bangalore. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs ICD, instead of issuing a speaking order issued a letter No. C. No. VIII/Q6/35072005-ICD-IMP 1828, dt. 20-4-2006. Aggrieved by the said letter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 168/2006, dated 12-12-2006 rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation that the letter dated 20-4-2006 was received by the appellant's Corporate Office on 4-7-2006 and the appeal was filed by the appellants on 5-10-2006. There was a delay of 93 days and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on them is sufficient is also not supported by any peace of evidence. (iv)   However, the appellants has submitted the evidence for address to be communicated on page Nos. 19 to 22 (copies of Bill of Entries where the importer details were mentioned) and page Nos. 26 to 31 (a copy of request letter for issue of assessment order) shows the concerned officer name and addresses were mentioned submitted in the appeal paper book. (v)     As the main issue of communication of address is factually incorrect, it is felt that the observation of Hon'ble CESTAT that so long as the communication address is provided to the department, then the department cannot be blamed is not factually correct and therefore needs t....