ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After allowing the stay petition unconditionally we take up both the appeals inasmuch as the issue involved in both of them is identical. Accordingly we have heard B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri T.K. Kar and Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. SDRs for the Revenue.
2. Vide his impugned order Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of limitation, by observing that the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation. The appellants have contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was received by them on 16-7-2002 when the same was collected personally by them. On the other hand Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the impugned order was served upon the appellant’s CHA on 19-12-2001 and as such there is a delay of eight months in filing the appeal.
3. The appellants’ contention is that CHA is not their authorised agent to receive the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The role of the Customs House Agent expires after the importation is complete. For the above proposition he relies upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case Collector of Customs, Cochin v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. – 1999 (106) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) as also on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd. – 1992 (62) E.L.T. 360 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that the service of the notice on the Customs House Agent is not a valid for service inasmuch as the CHA is no longer an agent of the importer after the goods were cleared from the Customs. Similarly in the case of CC v. Easland Combines – 1997 (90) E.L.T. 186 (T) = 1997 (18) RLT 125 (CEGAT) it was held that the service of notice to the clearing agent, who is not to contest re-assessment of goods is not services of the agent on the assessee.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was served upon the CHA. From records we find that CHA was also one of the parties before the Deputy Commissioner inasmuch as penalty was proposed against him. However, no penalty was imposed vide the order of the Deputy Commissioner, but a copy of the same was served on the CHA as he was one of the litigants before him. Service of copy on CHA, in these circumstances cannot be said to be services of copy of the order on behalf of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that CHA was authorised by the appellant to contest the case on their behalf before the Deputy Commissioner or to receive the orders on behalf of the appellant. We find force in the appellants’ contention that CHA is their authorized agent only for the purposes of importation. As soon the importation is complete, he ceases to be their agent. In these circumstances the date of receipt of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by the appellant is relevant date for the purposes of limitation. Inasmuch as it is on record that the impugned order was received by the appellant on 16-7-2002 and the appeal was filed on 6-8-2002, the same has to be considered as having been filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and remand both the cases to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits. Stay petition also gets disposed of.