2020 (10) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Aluminium and Non - Alloys Ingots which are cleared on payment of duty. The appellant mainly imports aluminium scrap, the main raw material, on regular basis. According for each consignment the appellant filed Bills of Entry under self assessment, on the transaction value. But, as a matter of routine, the Customs Officer have been loading the transaction value arbitrarily. The appellant for getting the clearance to avoid demurrage, deposited the duty and tax. However, being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeals against the various Bills of Entry assessed under Section 17(5) before the Commissioner (Appeals). Such appeals are 92 in numbers. The Orders in appeal was despatched by the office of C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orementioned FIR Shri Mahipal, Supervisor is also one of the accused. Hence, there was disturbance in the normal functioning of the appellant and particularly, involvement of the Supervisor Shri Mahipal. 3.2 It is further urged that again in the month of May, 2019, the appellant had made enquiry as regards status of their appeals vide letter dated 20.05.2019, which was received in the office of Commissioner (Appeals) on 22.05.2019. Thereafter, in due course, the appellant learnt from the office of Commissioner (Appeals) that the impugned orders has been passed and were despatched in November, December, 2018. Thereafter, as aforementioned, the appellant could find out that the orders from the old almirah on 21.07.2019. Thus, under the fac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce, at the time of leaving the office did not inform the Branch Manager about the receipt of impugned order. Thereafter, due to renovation, records were shifted to other place, it is probably during this time, that the documents got mixed up with other files. In such facts, the impugned order went unnoticed for about three years. When recovery notice was received, thereafter the appellant searched his office and could locate the order and filed the appeals. This Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the condonation of delay applications for insufficiency of cause for delay. Further, reliance is placed on the ruling of Madras High Court in the case of S. Zavier vs. CESTAT, Chennai - 2015 (316) ELT 589 (Mad.) wherein under the fact that the ap....