1979 (11) TMI 114 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of refund claim under Notification 206/63.
2. Service of the Assistant Collector's order to the party.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of lapse in the case.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a refund claim submitted by the party under Notification 206/63 for exemption from duty on iron and steel products cleared during a specific period. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, stating that the exemption did not apply to products manufactured from small ingots that did not require cutting. The party later requested a review of the rejection, claiming they did not receive the original rejection order. The Appellate Collector directed the Assistant Collector to reconsider the issue due to lack of evidence of service of the initial rejection order.

2. The Government initiated a review under Section 36(2) of the Act, questioning the correctness of the Appellate order. The party contended that they did not receive the rejection order and would have appealed if they had. The Government argued that the order was dispatched via Registered Post A.D., and the absence of postal acknowledgment did not prove non-service. Referring to legal precedent, the Government inferred that service of the order should be taken for granted in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The party's failure to appeal within the statutory time limit was cited as a reason for upholding the Assistant Collector's original rejection order.

3. Ultimately, the Government set aside the Appellate order and reinstated the Assistant Collector's rejection order, emphasizing the doctrine of lapse against the party. It was noted that the Appellate Collector erred in treating the subsequent order as an independent appealable decision, as the original rejection order was the proper subject of appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of timely appeals and proper consideration of the date of service of orders in legal proceedings.