9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order dated 28-11-1991 remanded the case to the original authority to adjudicate the matter on the question on merits as well as on the question of time bar. Pursuant to the said remand order the Assistant Collector had passed the order-in-original dated 30-6-1993 confirming a duty demand of Rs. 2,72,860.96 instead of Rs. 3,80,003.65 as demanded in the SCN. Assistant Collector had rejected the present appellants contention about time bar. Collector (Appeals) had by order dated 31-12-1993 remanded the matter again to the Assistant Collector directing him to give specific findings on the question of time bar. Thereafter the Assistant Collector had passed another order dated 19-4-1995 by which he again rejected the present appellants plea of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants had executed a Bond. The ld. Counsel, submitted that the appellants had refuted this claim of the Department and no document in support of the Department s case had been placed on record. 3. Ld. JDR, Shri Sumit Das appearing for the Respondent Collector submitted that the issue of time bar raised by the appellants related to the actual date of receipt of the demand-cum-SCN issued to the appellants by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Jammu asking the present appellants to show cause why an amount of Rs. 2,41,543.96 should not be demanded from the appellants on the ground that the appellants had wrongly availed the rebate under Notification No. 115/86 during the month of March, 1986 without complying with the conditions of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notice was to be served locally he did not see any logic in the Department delaying its service, though the Collector (Appeals) had himself admitted that no acknowledgement showing the date of receipt of the notice with any date was available with the Department. 5. On the question of the duty demand of Rs. 22,543.00 on the credit taken by the appellants in their PLA account for the period 1-3-1986 to 3-3-1986, JDR submitted that the demand had been raised for the reason that the appellants had filed declaration in terms of Notification No. 115/86 only on 3-3-1986 and therefore, the benefit of the Notification could not have been availed from 1-3-1986. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the sides and have perused the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants on 6-10-1986 or for that matter, even on any subsequent date. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has only made an observation that there was no logic or reason as to why the notice should not have been served on the appellants since it was a case of local delivery. In this connection, we notice that the demand-cum-notice dated 6-10-1986 has been issued by registered A.D. (vide Annexure VII of the Memo of Appeal No. E/712/94-C at page 75). In other words, the letter has been sent through the Postal channel and not by hand delivery in spite of the noticee being a local resident. Since the letter had been sent by Registered Post A.D., having regard to the formalities involved, it is highly unlikely that the Registered letter wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
