9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te) appeared on behalf of the appellant. While arguing the case of the appellant Shri Krishna Kumar highlighted that first appellate authority has not decided the issue on merits but has decided the case on time bar in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It was his case that the order-in-original No. 34/ADC/2013 dated 28.2.2013 passed by the Adjudicating authority was not received by the appellants and was only received on 21.11.2013 and thus appeals were filed in time. That when appellants asked for a copy of the acknowledgement but no signatures of the appellants are available on the acknowledgement cards. Learned advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his arguments:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. As the issue involved lies in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay applications appeals themselves are taken up for disposal. As per the arguments made by the Revenue the said order-in-original was delivered to the appellants on 21.3.2013 according to the communication dated 05.3.2014 received by the department from the postal authorities. Appellants argued that the acknowledgement cards furnished do not show any signature on behalf of the appellants. During the course of hearing original acknowledgements were also seen by the bench but no signature of the appellants could be seen at the relevant space. This issue is no more res-integra as observed by our judgment in the case of S.A. Engineering Works vs. CCE, Va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t validity of dispatch by speed post without proof of delivery and simultaneous affixing of order on the notice board is not considered to be the proof of delivery. The judgment of CCE Ltd. v. Mohan Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) (255) E.L.T. 321 (P & H)] relied upon by the ld. AR. is not applicable in this case because appellant in that case failed to discharge the burden that order in question was not served upon them. In the present case it has been brought out by the Appellant that no acknowledgement has been produced by the Revenue to the effect that appellant or his authorized representative have received the said order. Appellant is not going to gain in any manner by (sic) filing the appeal late if he has received OIA. Under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 37C the conclusion is compelling that where Revenue seeks to serve an adjudication order by sending it through by registered post, proof of service/proof of delivery of the communication on the assessee is an integral component of facts relevant to an inference as to the date of communication. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has inferred, from the fact of the adjudication order having been sent by registered post that there was a delivery of the registered post to the assessee. This inference suffers from a factual vacuum viz. proof of delivery. 6. On the aforesaid analysis the appellate order rejecting the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
