9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g receipt of such order? Held that: - Since the impugned order was sent by the Postal Department under Postal receipt No.1228, as per the mandates of Section 37 C, it has to be construed that the order has been served on the applicant within the reasonable time from the date of its dispatch - the date of sending of the impugned order through registered post i.e. on 05.04.2011 should be consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise (Appeals-I), Jaipur, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was filed on 11.10.2017. Since there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal, the Central Registry of this Tribunal has issued the Defect Memo, for removal of defects. Pursuant to the Memo issued by the Tribunal, the applicant has filed the COD application, which was listed for hearing befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r vide letter dated 20.02.2018 has confirmed that the impugned order dated 31.03.2011 was sent through registered post on 05.04.2011 to the applicant under Postal receipt No.1229. The Postal receipt and the dispatch register for Postal Dak maintained by the Office of Commissioner (Appeals) were also enclosed to the letter dated 20.02.2018. With regard to service of decisions/orders etc., sub-secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the order. Thus, we are of the considered view that the date of sending of the impugned order through registered post i.e. on 05.04.2011 should be considered as the date of communication of the order. Since the appeal was filed after more than six half years, thereafter, without explaining any reasonable cause for such delay, we are of the view that appeal cannot be entertained on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auses Act and Section 144 of the Indian Evidence Act. Having examined, we are of the view that it can safely be said that sending the order at correct address by registered post is a sufficient compliance of Section 37C of the 1944 Act. It is for the assessee to rebut the presumption of service by cogent evidence that in fact order was never served upon him. In the present matter, assessee failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
