2005 (7) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal was dismissed as time bar. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was a delay of 797 days in filing the appeal. 2. The contention of the appellant is that the adjudication order was passed on 25-9-2000 and the same was pasted at the factory premises of the appellant on 29-1-2001. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the revenue is that the order was pasted on 29-1-2001 at the factory of the appellant in the presence of two independent witnesses and panchnama was drawn hence appellant cannot say that the order was not served on 29-1-2001. Revenue has submitted that attested copy of the order was supplied to the appellant on 23-12-2002 on the request made. 4. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , serving authority can adopt any one of the modes prescribed therein. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that order was not served as per the provision of the Act. The Order was pasted at the factory premises on 29-1-2001 in the presence of two witnesses and a panchnama was drawn to that effect. In these circumstances, we f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X