9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appeal and during the course of hearing, appellant argued that the order in original No. 30/DC/STC/2010 dated 30.12.2010 was received by them only on 06.9.2011. It was also argued that the order in original dated 30.12.2010 was not served upon as per the procedure prescribed under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In support of their arguments, they relied upon the following decisions:- (a) R.K. Agarwal vs. CESTAT New Delhi 2008 (221) ELT 486(All.) (b) Matigara Rolling Mills (P) Limited 2006 (193) ELT 132 (Cal.) (c) Trans Global Agencies P. Ltd 2009 (245) ELT 757 (Tri. Ahmd.) In the light of the above judgments, it was argued vehemently by the advocate of the appellant that the order in original is required to be served, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid order in original was duly served upon the appellant. It was further argued that, none of the judgments relied upon by the appellant confirm the fact of receipt of order by the appellants in the relied upon judgments and therefore, on factual grounds, the judgments relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable. 4. After hearing both sides, I find that the crucial point required to be decided in this appeal is whether the first copy of order in original No. 30/DC/STC/2010 dated 30.12.2010 was received by the appellant before 06.9.2011 or not. It is observed from paragraph 3 of order in appeal dated 29.11.2011, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) that this aspect has been discussed in detail. In this paragraph Commissioner (Appeals) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resentative. The whole idea of serving the decision/ order under Section 37C is that the person to whom it is addressed duly receives such communication. This Section does not indicate that the required documents should be sent only through RPAD. Moreover, the wording of appellants letter dated 05.9.2011 clearly indicate that the order dated 30.12.2010 was received by them and the same was misplaced during shifting of their office to a new location. So the main point of receipt of order in original before 06.9.2011 stands settled when the appellant himself accepts the receipt of the order. Further, it is rightly pointed out by the learned A.R. for the department that none of the judgments relied upon by the appellant is applicable to the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation order to the petitioner also. In other words, the Hon'ble High Court has held that adjudication order served upon the authorised signatory of the petitioner cannot be considered as proper communication of adjudication order to the petitioner. However, in the present case, it is established as evident from the letter dated 05.9.2011 of the appellant that they have received the order in original but the same was misplaced by them and for which they have asked for a duplicate copy of the order in original dated 30.12.2010. In view of the above, the case laws relied upon by the appellants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and are distinguishable. 6.In the light of the above observations, the order in appeal d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
