2016 (6) TMI 1102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... receipt of the order is reflected by the appellant in their memo of appeal as 03.01.2014. 2. The appellant along with the appeal filed a stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of penalty. 3. When the matter was listed before the Bench, the Tribunal vide order dated 02.05.2014 directed the advocate for the appellant to file an affidavit to substantiate that the impugned order dated 30.03.1994 was received by him on 03.01.2014. Thereafter appellant filed an affidavit to the fact that the Order-in-Original was issued on 28.04.1994 but the same was received by him only on 03.01.2014. Appellant also stated in the affidavit that he left India on 02.10.1993 for Sultanate of Oman and returned to India only on 06.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by limitation and consequently not maintainable. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appeal is within limitation as the appellant received the copy of the impugned order dated 28.04.1994 on 03.01.2014 and the appeal was filed on 17.01.2014 which is within limitation. Learned counsel further submitted that during the time when the impugned order was passed, appellant was not in India and was in Oman along with his family. Appellant came to India on 06.11.2010 for a brief period. Appellant through his brother came to know on 30.12.2013 that some Sale Notice has been issued for the Sale of Immovable Property and then he came to India and tried to obtain ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the case of Mohammed Saleem [2007 (219) E.L.T. 698 (Tri.-Chennai)] wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has held as Appeal ' Limitation ' Delay of 1662 days in filing appeal - Condonation of -Service of order - impugned order sent by registered post on 25.05.2001 which was received by somebody at appellant's address on 31.05.2001 - appellant was abroad at that point of time whoever received the article on behalf of appellant should be considered as his agent inasmuch as Section 153(a) of Customs Act, 1962 does not use expression authorized agent impugned order delivered to appellant's agent on 31.05.2001 and this date to be reckoned for computing period of limitation for appeal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. After considering t....