Case Law Details
Anish India Export Vs Commissioner of Customs – Mumbai (Air Cargo Export) (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reproduced Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for services of order or decision. I find that it is provided that the order etc. should be served by sending it by registered post or by such courier as may be approved by the Commissioner and if it is not possible to serve the order etc. in the said manner, then by affixing it on notice board of the Custom House. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the filing of appeal was time barred. However, on which date the concerned Order-in-Original was sent by registered post to the appellant or on which date the said Order-in-Original was affixed on the notice board of the Custom House, has not been stated in the impugned order. I, therefore, do not find the impugned order to be reasonable because the date from which period of 90 days is reckoned with is missing. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the appellate authority to decide the issue on merit.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
Present appeal is arising out of impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 20.09.2019 through which learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal as time barred. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Tribunal.
2.Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are exporters and exported goods under claim of rebate. roceedings were initiated against the appellant for recovery of drawback for failure to produce evidence of eceipt of export proceeds in foreign exchange.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
