2018 (6) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent Per: V. Padmanabhan: The present appeal is challenging Order-in-Appeal No. 1514/17 dated 28.12.2017. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appeal filed before him is time barred. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The appellant filed a claim for refund of the Additional Duty of Custom (SAD) before the original authority. The refund, claimed in terms ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inally, the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 19.04.2016, was filed against the refund order before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 19.01.2017. The said appeal was held as time barred because it was not filed within the mandatory period from the date of the original authority's order (which was received by the appellant on 25.04.2016). Aggrieved by the impugned order, present appeal has bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore Commissioner (Appeals) after a delay of 265 days and hence is not maintainable. He also submitted that the appellant has approached the DGFT authorities only after the appeal period i.e. on 30.08.2016. 6. Heard both sides and perused record. 7. The refund sanction order was received by the appellant on 25.04.2016. But the appellant initially did not file any appeal since the refund was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the appellant was not aggrieved by the original authority's order received on 25.04.2016. He became aggrieved only on 30.12.2016, when his attempt to secure the recredit into the FPS licence failed. Immediately thereafter he has filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). 9. I am of the view that the time limit in this case, for purposes of Section 128 is to be reckoned from 30.12.2016. F....