9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company on whom the said order has been served. It is legally required to be served on the authorised representative of the company, normally the authorised representative for making compliance under the excise law and Rules thereunder. As it is the successive show cause notice, and appellant was already in appeal with respect to the same dispute for the previous period, there is no reason for the appellant to sit tight and not take any steps to file their appeal upon service of the impugned order-in-original - finding of the Commissioner (Appeal) is erroneous and hit by the provisions of section 37 C of the Act. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals), with direction for hearing the appellant, and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present show cause notice and/or successive show cause notice for the period October, 2015 to March, 2016. On receiving this show cause notice, the appellant had informed the adjudicating authority that they are in appeal before this Tribunal, with respected to the adjudication for the precedent period and requested to keep the proceedings in abeyance. This fact has been taken notice of in the Order-in-Original in para 3. Thereafter he further noticed that the appellant had also filed a copy of the appeal memo before the Tribunal for the precedent period, which was filed on 19th August, 2019 before the adjudicating authority. It further seems that without giving any further opportunity of hearing, adjudicating authority passed an ex-party o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 on 13th March, 2019, accordingly he called for the report from the divisional in charge. In compliance superintendent technical, CGST division by his reply dated 08th August, 2019 informed that the impugned order was handed over on 24.10.2017 in person, to the staff of the appellant by the office dispatcher, and also enclosed the copy of dispatch register wherein the signature was illegible, dated 24.10.2017. 5. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) further took notice that a recovery letter dated 7.12.2017 was also dispatched to the appellant by speed post on the same day and a copy of the speed post receipt was also provided along with the copy of the letter dated 07.10.2017. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any. 7. Thus, as provided by the Act the order-in-original have not been served on the appellant, nor the department is having any proper acknowledgment, or the name and the designation of the person in the appellant company on whom it has been served. Further, in view of the mis-matching of the file number, said claim of Revenue is vague and erroneous. Accordingly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has error in relying on the claim of service as made by the Revenue, vitiating the impugned order-in-appeal. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 8. Learned DR Mr. Ishwar Charan relies on the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
