Customs – Cestat Mumbai: Merely by sending a copy of the Order-in-Original by speed post, the department cannot be said to have discharged their liability to communicate the same to the appellant – It is required to be received to the Appellant – Appeal allowed [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
08-Jun-2023 19:57:34
Order Date – 06 June 2023
Parties: Metro Fashions Vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (Air Cargo Export)
Facts –
- The Appellant, Metro Fashions, was issued with a demand cum show cause notice dated 31.8.2017 demanding Rs.1,58,101/- being the drawback amount obtained by the appellant for the exports made under the shipping bills. The demand was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 20.3.2018 with imposing penalty.
- The appeal filed on 24.10.2019 by the appellant was rejected on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of the appeal.
- It was contented by the appellant that they received the copy of order-in-original only on 13.09.2019 that too when they personally visited the authority’s office
Issue –
- Whether the learned Commissioner is justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred u/s. 128, Customs Act, 1962?
Order –
- The Tribunal observed that merely by sending a copy of the Order-in-Original by speed post, the department cannot be said to have discharged their liability as they have to communicate the same to the appellant which means it has to be served on the assessee as the wording used in Section 128 ibid is ‘date of communication of order’.
- In the instant case the appellant received copy of the Order-in-Original on 13.9.2019 the appeal before the learned Commissioner (A) was filed on 24.10.2019 which is well within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of the Order-in-Original. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of time bar.
- The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same on merits.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation