2018 (5) TMI 361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xemption on the condition that they would meet the export obligation within the stipulated period prescribed by the licensing authority. The appellant had executed a bond to that effect undertaking to pay duty leviable on demand in case of violation to fulfill the export obligation. After the expiry of stipulated period, the appellant did not produce any documentary proof to show that they had fulfilled the export obligation as referred in the license. A demand notice dated 25.11.2010 was issued to the appellant for payment of customs duty along with interest. The appellant did not appear for personal hearing and the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,50,53,659/- along with interest and also ordered to encash the bank guarante....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are to be installed in their factory. Thus, the factory address of the appellant is clearly mentioned in the license itself. Moreover, the appellant had been regularly importing materials for their factory and the address of the factory of the appellant is very much available on the record of the customs. However, the department chose to issue the demand notice, hearing notice and the copy of the order in original to their site office address. The appellant has not been served with the copy of the order in original or any of the detention notice or hearing notice. The department initiated recovery proceedings and then the appellant came to know of such recovery notice, the appellant requested for copy of order in original and after obtainin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me to the department. When the appellant has not intimated the change of address, the appellant cannot later turn around to say that there has been no service of the order upon him. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of being time-bar. The appellant has stated that they were not served with the copy of the order in original and only after receiving the detention notice dated 22.5.2012, they came to know that such an order has been passed. It is brought out from the records that the address of the appellant had changed as they shifted their office to the factory premises itself. During the hearing of the stay petition, the Tribunal had directed the Revenue to furnish documents to p....