9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the possibility of those letters to have been issued as an intentional strategy to seek condonation cannot be ruled out - there is no apparent error on record as is alleged. Application stands rejected. - Service Tax ROM Application No.ST/ROM/50565/2018 -CU [DB] in Service Tax Appeal No.ST/51869/2017-CU [DB] - Misc. ORDER NO. 50590/2018 - Dated:- 10-8-2018 - Mr. C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) and Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant : Mr.Jatin Mahajan, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr.G.R. Singh, D.R. ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA Applicant has filed application for rectification of mistake under Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994, Chapter-V read with Section 35C (2) of the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws:- 5.1 That there is an apparent and admitted delay of almost six years since the date of the order under challenge till the filing of the impugned appeal. This is an apparent fact that no application for condonation of delay was filed by the appellant/ applicant till it was ordered by this Tribunal on 9th November, 2017. The said condonation application has been dismissed vide the order for which the rectification has been prayed for. Perusing the present Misc. Application and comparing the same with the previous application for condonation of delay and the respective order, we observe that all the grounds as taken in the present application were taken by the applicant in his application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal has met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nication 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 ground of limitation. We find that the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs. Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. - 2010 TIOL - 840 HC P H - CX, while interpreting the provisions of Section 37C of the Act, 1944, has held that sending of order through registered post will be construed as sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, we hold that there is no apparent error on record as is alleged. The case law of R.P. Casting Pvt. Ltd. vs. CESTAT, New Delhi 2016 (344) E.L.T. 168 (Raj) as has been relied upon by the applicant is held not applicable to the present case, as in that case, there was no evidence adduced by the Department about the order to ever been served by registered post but in the present case, as already observed, the Department has duly produced the date of dispatch of the impugned order through registered cover. The document as annexed on the paper book, shows that it was registered with the receipt of Acknowledgement Due. Hence, the said case law is not applicable to the present appeal. 7. In view of entire above discussion, the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
