9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw does not provide for any presumption, and proof of delivery needs to be brought on record. In these circumstances, it is found that the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Further, it is found that the order-in-original was passed ex-parte as the Range Superintendent passed the order ignoring the written representation filed by the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiring to show cause as to why not penalty be imposed under Section 77(1) for non furnishing of information/ documents as required. The appellant had filed reply to the show cause notice on 21.12.2016, which has been acknowledged by the Department. However, the order-in-original was passed ex-parte observing that the appellant has not filed reply to the show cause notice, and accordingly imposed p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived back by the Department undelivered. Accordingly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) assumed that the appellant was required to file the appeal within sixty days from the date of despatch on or before 29.02.2016 and accordingly holding that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 1704 days, was pleased to dismiss the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 5. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Counsel also relies on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of ADF Foods vs. CCE, Nasik -2015 (325) ELT 922 (Tri.) wherein it was held that there is no presumption of service unless the Revenue brings on record the proof of delivery, for despatch by speed post or registered post. 6. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 7. Having c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
