TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order. Then applicant states that he immediately searched his office records and enquired with the staff and noticed that neither the impugned order was served on him nor any demand for collecting the penalty was made on the applicant in this case. The relevant paragraphs in the application for condoning delay are reproduced below :- 6. I submit however, on 6-1-2011, I learnt of the impugned order from my lawyer who came to know about the outcome of the above proceedings and also about the further proceedings by the other persons involved in the above matter and also gave me a copy of theimpugned order. I submit that immediately searched the office records and also enquired my staff and learnt that neither the impugned order was ever served on the appellants nor every any demand of the penalty levied thereon was made on the appellants till date. 7. I submit that I learnt that the impugned order came to be passed on 28-5-2009 wherein he appellants were held liable as abettor for rendering the export goods liable to confiscation under Sec. 113 (i) of the Custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29-6-2009. Further The Authorized Representative for Revenue also produced letter No.111156-03509 dt. 07/04/2011 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore reading as under :- "It is to inform you that the Speed Post Letter with Transaction No.ET531150012IN booked on 29/06/2009 at NSPC Coimbatore RMS addressed to M/s.Excel Shipping Services, No.606, K.M. Towers, Binny Compound II Street, Kumaran Road, Tirupur 641 601 was received by Tirupur HPO, the delivery Office on 30/06/2009 and returned to Sender with remarks "Unclaimed' on 07/07/2009. The Speed post was redelivered to your Office on 08/07/2009. The Copy of delivery slip is enclosed herewith for your kind information." 4. The applicant was given time to study the report of the department of posts as to why it should not be considered that the order was served on the applicant in time and non-receipt of the order was because of the fact that the applicant had not claimed the postal cover when the postal authorities tried servethe letter to him. On 13-12-2013, the matter was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... department has not been able to produce the cover that was returned by the postal authorities. The department also did not produce any evidence to show that on return of the order by the postal authorities, the same was displayed on the notice board of the Customs department as per provisions in section 153 of the Customs Act which reads as under :- SECTION 153. Service of order, decision, etc.?- Any order or decision passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act, shall be served - (a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or notice or sending it by registered post or by such courier as may be approved by the Commissioner of Customs; (b) if the order, decision, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing it on the notice board of the customs house. 6. Therefore, he submits that the order was never served on the applicant as it is evident from the fact that the postal authorities themselves have withdrawn the cover and therefore it has to be considered that there is no delay in the filing of the appeal and the appeal should be admitted. He relies on the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the order-in-original sent by Registered Post and which was returned with the postal endorsements 'absent' and 'intimation delivered' should be construed as actual service on the petitioner. If the above observation of the Honourable Supreme Court of India is carefully considered it could be easily seen that for the purpose of fixing the commencing date in reckoning the period contemplated under Clause (d) to the proviso of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Honourable Supreme Court of India has observed as above, but clarified the said observation with the further observation that of course such reckoning would be without prejudice to the right of the drawer of the cheque to show that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address. In the case on hand such an opportunity will not be available to the petitioner and therefore in the construed view of this Court, the above observation of the Honourable Supreme Court of India may not apply to the facts of this case. 8. I have considered the submissions on both sides and the relevant decisions. In this case, there is proof of dispatch of the adjudication order by way of extracts of the register main....