9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice by Speed-Post is not valid in law. We find that in the present case also since speedpost is not mentioned and since even according to the Respondent, the order was sought to be served by Speed-Post and since there is not even an acknowledgement in token of service by the Speed-Post, there was no valid service in law. - even an attempt was not made to serve the Appellant in the manner prescribed under clause (a) of Section 153. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Customs Appeal No. 95 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2015 - B.R. GAVAI A.S. GADKARI, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Brijesh Pathak For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly ORDER P.C. : The Appeal challenges the order passed by the learned CESTAT da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the recovery notice, he immediately obtained a copy and filed an appeal. It is, therefore, submitted that there is not deliberate or willful delay on the part of the Appellant. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, when the Appellant was before the original authority, there is no reason as to why he would not have filed an appeal within the prescribed period. He, therefore, submits that the Appeal deserves to be allowed and the application for condonation of delay deserves to be allowed. 5. Mr. Jetly, on the contrary submits that since the order was served by affixing it on the notice board of the Customs House, the service was in accordance with law and as such, the Appeal ought to have been filed within the prescribed perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order was sought to be served on the Appellant by Speed- Post. Admittedly, the order was not served upon the Appellant by the registered post as required under clause (a) of Section 153. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 299 (Bom.) while considering the para materia provisions under the Central Excise Act 1944 has held that since Speed-Post is not mentioned under Section 37-C of the Central Excise Act, service of notice by Speed-Post is not valid in law. We find that in the present case also since speedpost is not mentioned and since even according to the Respondent, the order was sought to be served by Speed-Post and since there is not even an acknow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
