TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner assails two orders passed by two different Authorities. The petitioner assails an order dated August 31, 2005 passed by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and an order dated August 25, 2009 passed by the Custom Authorities. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, although both the orders are appealable, the order in original was never served upon the petitioner by the Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents. Learned advocate for the DGFT submits that, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order dated August 31, 2005 was passed. The petitioner was well aware of the proceeding. He was served a copy of the order in original by speed post. He relies upon a communication dated August 30, 2010 to such effect in Court. He submits that, there is unexplained delay on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31, 2005 and the other is of the Custom Authorities dated August 25, 2009. Both the orders admittedly are appealable. The petitioner explains the non-availing of the statutory right to prefer an appeal from two orders impugned on the averments made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, it had engaged one person to look after the matter. The Director looking after the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he office of the DGFT. By such communication a demand was raised. The petitioner therefore became aware that a demand was raised by DGFT consequent upon an adjudication in the proceeding. The petitioner not to take any steps even in spite of such knowledge. Such letter has been annexed with a pleading at paragraph 19 of the writ petition. The petitioner does not claim that, it had come across such....