9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is excisable items. During the course of audit of records of the appellants, it was observed that the appellants had taken Cenvat credit on the strength of bills of entry issued in the name of the appellant at different address, which according to the department, amounted to contravention of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Thus show cause notice raising the demand of Rs. 46,12,692/- was served on the appellant in respect of periods 2005-06 and 2006-07. The appellant responded to the show cause notice vide his letter dated 11-5-2010. The adjudicating authority, however, vide order-in-original dated 11-10-2010 disallowed the credit amounting to Rs. 46,12,692/- and directed to recovery of the same along with interest from the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddress of the assessee in the manner provided in sub-section (1) of Section 37C there shall be a presumption of service. In the instant case, it is not the case of the department that the copy of the order-in-original was either tendered to the assessee or affixed at his residential address. It is contended that in the instant case, the stand of the department is that the copy of the order-in-original was sent to the appellant by speed post, which is not a recognised mode of service as provided under Section 37C(1)(c) of the Act. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in raising inference that the appellant was served with copy of the order in original in October, 2010 to come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by registered post with acknowledgement due to the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, a copy of the order has not been sent by registered post. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the requirement of section 37C has been complied with. The CESTAT was wrong in relying upon the judgment of P & H High Court in the case of Mohan Bottling Company (P) Ltd. (supra), as in that case a copy of the order was sent by registered post, whereas in the present case, the order is said to have been sent by speed post and there is no evidence of tendering the decision to the assessee. 6. In these circumstances, in our opinion the decision of the CESTAT that the requirements of Section 37C have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
