9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara 47(2) of Adjudication Manual, the service of orders through local range offices is an approved mode of service. Also, Asstt. Commissioner in his reply dated 26.10.10 to assessee's letter dated 25.09.10 has clearly mentioned that adjudication order was served on 18.06.08. It is only the photocopy of the adjudication order which again stands supplied to the appellant. As such the service of the photocopy of the adjudication order for the second time cannot be taken as relevant date of receipt of the order for the purposes of limitation - Decided against assessee - ST/1745 of 2011 - ST/A/518 of 2012 - CUS. - Dated:- 22-6-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Mathew John, JJ. A.P Mathur for the Appellant. K.K Jaiswal for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s address on 18.06.08 and was duly received by Shri Virendra Yadav, who represented himself to be nephew of the appellant. Ld. AR also submits that as per para 47(2) of the Adjudication Manual for the Department, it has been specified that the adjudication order may be served through local ranger office and in that case, order should not be served by postal authorities. Accordingly it is the contention of Shri Jaiswal that the acknowledgement receipt under the dated signatures of Shri Virendra Yadav, appellant's nephew, is proper and legal. If that be so, the appeal filed before Commissioner(Appeals) is barred by limitation. 4. In his rejoinder, Shri Mathur draws our attention to page 21 of the appeal vide which Revenue has placed on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion order by Shri Virendra Yadav. We find from the said acknowledgement that the adjudication order was served personally at the appellant's residence address as 172/A, Ashok Nagar, Allahabad from the appeal format. We also note from the appeal format that the address of the appellant stands reflected as 172/A, Ashok Nagar, Allahabad. We also note that the said page produced on record by Revenue as a part of records maintained by them in the ordinary course of serving of adjudication orders to various assessees. As per para 47(2) of Adjudication Manual, the service of orders through local range offices is an approved mode of service. Ld. Advocate has not been able to produce on record anything contrary to the said documentary evidence produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. AR submits that appellant was not registered as service tax payer and as such no authorised representative stands mentioned by him. As the impugned order was served at the residential address of the appellant, it has to be considered as proper service of the order. 11. We find force in the contention of ld. AR. Admittedly the evidence produced on record show service of order at the residential address of the appellant. Revenue cannot be expected to first establish the identity of the appellant or his authorised representative. In any case, no authorised representative stands specified by the appellant in departmental records. Further, the appellant has not made any efforts to establish that Shri Virendra Yadav, who received the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
