9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay of almost 15 months therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal as time -barred. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, it is difficult for us to take the view that the questions as proposed are substantial questions of law falling for the consideration of this Court. Appeal dismissed. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 50 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2020 - MR. J.B. PARDIWALA AND MR. BHARGAV D. KARIA JJ. Appearance: Mr. Narendra L Jain (5647) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 Viral K Shah (5210) for the Opponent(s) No. 2 ORAL ORDER (PER : MR. J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. Draft amendment is allowed. The same shall be carried out at the earliest. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show -cause as to why the Cenvat Credit to the tune of ₹ 3,82,028/ wrongly obtained should not be recovered by invoking Rule 14 of the Rules read with Section 11A(5) of the Act, 1944. 3.3 It appears that the appellant ignored the show -cause notice though served upon it. In such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded ex -parte and passed an order dated 14th May, 2015. The operative part of the Order- in- Original reads thus: ORDER (i) I disallow the Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 3,82,028/ (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Twenty Eight Only) for the period of March 2011 to April 2013 and order to be recovered from M/s. Zedex Clothing Private Limited, situated at 132/2, Balaji Estate, Isanpur Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal vide impugned order dated 24th November, 2017 dismissed the appeal as time barred. The Tribunal was not convinced with the sufficient cause assigned by the appellant for the delay in preferring the appeal. 3.5 In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal. 4. The appellant has proposed the following questions of law for the consideration of this Court. [a] Whether the Tribunal was correct in not interfering with the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) without going into the issue on merit of the case? [b] Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the contention of the appellant that the Order In Original was never served upon the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals), during the course of hearing asked a report from the jurisdictional office as regards when the adjudication was sent and when it was received by the appellant. The said report is placed on record and the same is extracted below: In this connection, it is to submit that OIO No.MP/01/DC/Div IV/2015 16 dated 14.05.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, C.Ex.Div IV, Ahmedabad I was dispatched to the concerned assessee by this office through Registered Post on 19.05.2015 and same was delivered at their premises on 25.5.2015 as per postal acknowledgment received. Copy of postal acknowledgment is enclosed for ready reference please. This fact was already reported to the assessee in response to their letter dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
