TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed order rejecting the appeal on the aspect of condonation of delay. Hence we went through the same carefully and we notice that there is clear abuse of process by the appellant. 2. First we have to necessarily state the facts. An order in original, as produced at Annexure B, was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Calicut on 25.05.2001. The order was in pursuance of confiscation of gold made from a third party. The carrier is said to have received the gold from the appellant, who traveled from Dubai to India and who owned up the title of the goods. The appellant had declared gold carried with him from abroad and paid duty on the same. However the gold recovered was in excess of that declared by the appellant and he was presumed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that stated in the affidavit. The Tribunal directed the Department to produce the postal acknowledgment card and adjourned the matter. The Counsel for the appellant also stated that he would file an application for amendment of the date of communication of the order. 5. On the next posting date, the appellant filed a fresh affidavit contending that the Tribunal had directed the appellant to correct the factual and typographical mistakes, that was noticed in the earlier affidavit. The averment in the said affidavit produced here, as Annexure C was that the appellant had filed the appeal with only 68 days delay; as computed from the date of knowledge. The earlier date of receipt was sought to be altered on the ground that the appellant ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....steps to file an appeal therefrom. Be that as it may, the further statement made in the affidavit that he came to know about the order only on 07.07.2005 is a deliberate falsehood as discernible from the conflicting contentions raised in the affidavit itself. 8. Further, the Department had also stated before the Tribunal that the personal penalty imposed on the appellant of Rupees One lakh was paid by him in the year 2003. The Power of Attorney of the appellant, who filed the affidavit at Annexure C, on his being so instructed, specifically stated that the appellant had not paid up the fine and he was not aware of such an order. There is also an averment that some of his family members would have paid the amount for reason of the coerciv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to actually ensure receipt by the person against whom the order is passed. 10. The appellant would rely on Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax [2015 (322) ELT 192 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically declared that service by personal tender shall only be on an authorised agent. We discern a clear distinction on facts and a clearer non-application of the law declared therein. Therein the adjudication order was served on an employee of the appellant, by personal tender, who, the appellant stated, was a kitchen boy employed on daily wages. The said service was in the manner as prescribed in subclause (a) of Section 37C, ie: by tendering the order to the person for ....