9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) to show that there was no mala fide by the appellant to follow the deliberate tactics - When the appellant does not dispute that order was served on 3-3-07 on one Shri Jaipal Singh, the appellant has not come out with clean hands to prove its bona fide submitting that the order could not receive attention of appellant because that was served on Shri Jaipal Singh. The case clearly throws light that the appellant is an indolent with out being conscious to exercise its right of redressal. - No presumption can be made against a public authority in absence of his ma/a fides brought by other side to show that a Public Authority kept quiet after passing an order without the same being served to cause prejudice to the interest of rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Matigara Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Siliguri reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R. 363 (Cal.) = 2006 (193) E.L.T. 132 (Cal.). He places para '6' of the order in support of his claim that service of an order on a peon is not a valid service under law. Also he realise on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Yarnar Packs v. Commissioner of Customs C. Ex., Hyderabad IV reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 511 (Tribunal) = 2007 (219) E.L.T. 343 (Tri. - Bang.). Relying on these two decisions and on the facts stated by him as above, he prays that the matter should go back to the lower appellate authority staying realisation of the demand by the Tribunal. 3. Learned DR submits that the authority served the order in time with ack ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before him as to whether the order was served on the appellant or not. When an order is sent and acknowledgement has been obtained, it was for the appellant to find out on whom the order has been served and pleaded accordingly. When the appellant does not dispute that order was served on 3-3-07 on one Shri Jaipal Singh, the appellant has not come out with clean hands to prove its bona fide submitting that the order could not receive attention of appellant because that was served on Shri Jaipal Singh. The case clearly throws light that the appellant is an indolent with out being conscious to exercise its right of redressal. In view of such circum stances, learned Commissioner has rightly denied ignorance of the appellant who was not vigil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
