9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants filed the appeal within period of limitation reckoned from the date of service of the orders, the appeals are not time barred. Counsel submitted that in terms of Section 37C of the Act, any order or decision has to be served, firstly, by tendering i.e. by hand delivery to the assessee and if it is not so served, by sending it by registered post with acknowledgement due. If is duly when services can not be effected by these modes that recourse can be taken to house service. Counsel stated that without complying with the said procedure, the Department affixed copy of the order as provided in clause (2) of Section 37C, but as the service in the manner provided in clause (b) can be effected only after complying with the procedure prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the adjudication order by registered post, but the same was not accompanied by acknowledgement due . Having regard to the fact that the dispatch was returned with a remark of the postal peon, we are satisfied that there was sufficient compliance of the clause (a). It is needless to say that the object of enclosing the acknowledgement due card is to enable the serving agency i.e. the Postal Department to submit proof of the service/non-service of the letter/notice/order or the circumstances of non-service thereof. 4. Havingheld that there was service of notice as prescribed under Rule 37C(l)(a), the position which emerges is that the appeals are barred by limitation having not been preferred the appeal within 90 days of the service o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case was adjourned to 17/18-2-2003. On that date, labour problem had arisen and the plant was closed from 25-10-2003, the appellant had no access to the records and they could not properly present their case for personal hearing. The request for adjournment was no doubt granted and the case was fixed for 23-3-2003 but on account of continuation of labour problems and non-availability of the authorized signatory, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. In the circumstances set out above while the adjudicating authority cannot be blamed for, he did give opportunity of hearing to the appellant, at the same time, we are of the view that as the orders were passed without properly considering the case of the appellant, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
