9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of a person is sufficient communication. Thus when the order was passed by the Tribunal in presence of counsel of the appellant, the order shall also be deemed to be communicated on the same date and the submission of the appellant that unless the order is received by the appellant in person, the order shall not be treated to be communicated to the appellant, cannot be accepted. Revenue placed the evidence in so far as the order was sent to the appellants by speed post, no attempt was made by the appellants to refute this evidence. It is also not disputed the service of order to the Ld. Advocate of the appellant. So, we are unable to accept the contention of the Ld. Advocate that the impugned order was served by letter dated 22.12.2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intendent (Appeals) informed the appellant that the orders have been dispatched by speed post on 09.05.2011 and also forwarded a copy of the order to the appellant. It is stated in the said letter that the order should be read as Orders dated 25.04.2011 instead of Orders dated 25.04.2010 . iv) It is clearly evident from the appellant s letter dated 15.12.2011 that a copy of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), was served within time to the Ld. Advocate, who appeared in the hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. These facts were not denied by the appellant at any point of time. He relied upon a decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanumal Glass Works Vs. CCE, Kanpur - 2012 (284) ELT 15 (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt (Appeals), informed that the impugned order was amended and therefore, date of communication of the order would be counted from the date of amendment of the order ie., 22.12.2011. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunals in the case of Roplas (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune - 2002 (146) ELT 186 (Tri. - Mum.). d) The appellants filed affidavit before this Tribunal stating that they have not received the impugned order as contented by the Revenue in their letter dated 22.12.2011. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records on preliminary issue, we find that the appellants by their letter dated 15.12.2011, requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide copy of the impugned order. The said letter dated 15.12.2011 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Orders-in-appeal No. 50/2011 51/2011 (MST) may be read as Orders dated 25.04.2011 instead of Orders dated 25.04.2010 . The said orders had been dispatched to you by Speed Post on 09.05.2011 as per the records available in this office and the copy of dispatch records alongwith copy of the Orders-in-appeal are enclosed herewith for reference. 5. It is seen from the impugned order that the order was sent to the appellants as well as their Ld. Advocate, who appeared personal hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as before this Tribunal. The appellants in their letter dated 15.12.2011, stated that the appellant was informed by their counsel that the Final Order has been passed. Thus, it is clearly evident that the Ld. Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of service under speed post delivery, would not be applicable in the present case , as it is apparent from the record that the order was served on the Ld. Advocate of the appellants. The Ld. Advocate also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Roplas (India) Ltd. (supra), wherein the date corrigendum to the impugned order making changes in the amount of duty demanded is to be relevant date of the order. In the present case, there is no corrigendum to the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Superintendent (Appeals) by letter dated 22.12.2011, had corrected the typographical mistake in so far as the date of order should be read as dated 24.04.2011 instead of 25.04.2010. Hence, the said ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
