9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Dismissal of appeals by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order on the ground that the same have been filed beyond the condonable period prescribed under the statute, is the subject matter of dispute before this Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 2-4-2007, which were dismissed vide impugned order dated 24-12-2007. The claim of the appellants are that due to closure of the factory, the adjudication orders were not received by them and the fact regarding issue of such order came to their knowledge through the letter dated 2-2-2007 from the Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of actual communication of the order. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard the ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the records. 6. I find from the available records, that due to closure of the factory, the adjudication order could not be served on the appellant, enabling them to file the appeal within the stipulated time frame. However, upon communication of the certified copy of the order by the Central Excise Department on 2-2-2007, the appeals were filed in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) on 2-4-2007, which is within the prescribed time limit in terms of Section 35A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Mahazar extracted above reveal that the unit of the appellant was not existing at the site, where the order has been affixed. Further, the Mahazar witnesses have also stated that they do not know about the unit of the appellant and also about Shri N. Srinivasa and his residential address. The Superintendent of Central Excise in the Mahazar has also admitted the above facts and confirmed that the present address of the appellant is not known. Hence, the Mahazar drawn in presence of the witnesses clearly depicts that the adjudication order has not been communicated to the appellant enabling it to file the appeal. I also find that the provisions of Section 37C of the Act will have no application to the facts of the present case in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
