9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder his orders dated 29th July, 2000 and 2nd August, 2000, held that, the assessable value of the impugned goods declared by the appellants was required to be loaded with indirect costs, such as, interest, depreciation, administrative expenses etc. and the amount was required to be added to the price declared by the party to arrive at the assessable value under the provisions of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, and confirmed the differential duty for the period October, 1995 to February, 1996 on the quantity of poly wool yarn and poly viscose yarn cleared for captive consumption in respect of 13 show cause notices issued during the period from December 1995 to October 1999. With reference to the show cause notice dated 03rd April, 1996 and in third one confirmed the demand of duty while denying the exemption claimed for the period during April, 1993 to August, 1993 under Notification No. 280/79 dated 30th October, 1979 and also imposed penalty. 5. Meanwhile it appears that, under order dated 7-1-1998 passed by the High Court of Bombay in a Notice of Motion taken out in Suit No. 21 of 1998, the Receiver came to be appointed in respect of the appellants' company. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Th-III/PI/00-01 157 100 257 6. 294/Th-III/JPD/06/01 dated 27-2-01 1 0 01 7. 35/97-98 dated 28-11-97 38 2 40 8. 279-280/Th-III/00-01 dated 22-2-01 434 200 634 9. 34/Th-III/ISS-00 dated 25-9-01 4 1 5 10. 34/Th-III/ISS-01 828 0 828 11. 547-549/Th-III/R-8/96-97 dated 1-5-96 200 25 225 TOTAL 19094 7. In furtherance to the said letter, the appellants requested the Department for furnishing of the order passed by the authority against the appellants under their letter which was submitted to the Office of the Assistant Commissioner at Thane on 10th August, 2006. The same reads as under : "We are concerned with our client M/s. Wellman Hindustan Ltd. who have urged us to take up their case before the competent authorities for determining the duty liability arising out of Orders issued by your office. A copy of the Vakalatnama in our favour is enclosed. 2. Kindly refer to your letter dated 19-7-2006 showing the list of arrears pending against M/s Wellman Hindustan Ltd. As has already been brought to your notice by the Company, the factory was closed in November, 1999 after which the Management or the staff were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants, submitted that, the endorsements which are stated to have been recorded on the copy of the impugned orders in possession of the Department were neither of any of the employees of the appellants' company nor on behalf of the appellants' company. The signatures do not disclose to have been affixed on behalf of the appellants and, in any case, according to the learned advocate, in the absence of proper records of the service of the copy of the orders upon the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have held that the appeal was filed after more than six years of actual date of receipt of the order. Attention was also drawn to Section 37-C of the said Act in this regard. 11. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that, the Commissioner (Appeals) having considered the fact regarding service of the copy of the orders upon the appellants and on the basis thereof having held that the appeal was filed beyond the period of six years, there is no case for interference in the impugned order. 12. As already stated above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to the finding about the service of the order-in-original upon the appellants on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally concerned with the first mode of service prescribed under Section 37-C, as it is nobody's case that the copy of the order could not be served by rendering or by sending registered post. In the case in hand, it is the contention of the Department that the copy of the order was served by tendering the same to the appellants. It is a matter of record that the appellants is a Public Limited Company. Obviously, therefore, the service has to be made to a person who can represent the company. Undoubtedly, one of the copies of the order, which is placed on record, discloses endorsement by someone of having received the copy of the order. However, the said endorsement nowhere discloses the copy having been received by the company. Hence, on the endorsed copy neither there is seal of the company nor there is any endorsement by the person having received the copy on behalf of the company. The records nowhere disclose that the person whose endorsement was received was in the employment of the appellants' company. 16. In fact, whenever a copy of the order or notice is served upon the addressee and if the addressee happens to be a company, the person serving the copy should insist for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
