2005 (2) TMI 184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s : The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) [Order-in-Appeal No. 100 (KDT) CE/JPR-I (53) dated 8-3-200] as barred by limitation. The appellant submitted before the Tribunal that no copy of the Order impugned before the Commissioner had been served on it. The Revenue's contention was that the Order had been served by registered post and thereafter by affixing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sting some papers on the appellant's factory (without confirming that it was the Order in question) panchanama proceeding cannot be accepted as authentic. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Elektro Kool Industries v. CCE, Hyderabad-III - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 255 (T) = 2004 (63) RLT 296. 2. As against the above contention of the appellant, the learned S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g wrong in it and thereafter, I appended my signatures on a paper'. Further to another specific question 'what was the paper which was pasted', Shri Sanjay Khan replied as under :- 'It was white paper something was written thereon and he had not read that paper. 'He further added that there were three - four persons." 4. It is well settled that affixing the Order on the factory premises is s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X