9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate for the applicant has submitted that the Tribunal Order has a mistake apparent in the sense that despite the appellant provided sufficient evidence to prove reasonable grounds which barred him to file the appeal in the time, still the order recites about having no evidence in this respect. It is impressed upon that had that applications as attached with the application praying for condonation of delay i.e. dated 20th June, 2017 and 24th July, 2017 would have been considered, there has been a sufficient reason for the delay to have been condoned. The rejection of the said condonation application is therefore impressed to have an error apparent on record. Application is accordingly prayed to be allowed. Reiterating the basic fact that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "4. On the last date of hearing, the Bench directed the ld. AR for Revenue for ascertaining the fact regarding communication of the order to the applicant. Accordingly, the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur 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-section (2) of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to the Finance Act, 1994 mandates that every order passed, sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered as the date of receipt of the order by the addressee. The relevant paragraph in the said judgment is extracted herein below:- 9. We have carefully perused the judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of M.A. Mohammed Ismail's (supra) and in Raja Kumari (supra). We have also carefully examined Section 37C of the 1944 Act, Section 27 of the General Clauses 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
