TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n received by authorized person, as claimed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appealof the appellants will be within time. Therefore, for this purpose, the matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals). - E/812 to 814/2010 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2011 - MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, J Represented by: Shri H.D. Dave, Adv. for Assessee. Shri R.Srova, A.R. for the Revenue. Per: Mr.B.S.V. Murthy: The appeals filed by the appellants have been rejected on the ground that the appeals were not filed within time limit prescribed in the Statute. Ld. Counsel submits that the Department has provided a copy of acknowledgement received for having delivered the Order-in-Original by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD). H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Classic Marbles Vs CC (Import) Mumbai 2009 (245) ELT 679 (Tri-Mumbai) and in the case of S.A. Plywood Industies Vs CCE Siliguri 2010 (17) STR 616 (Tri-Kolkata) and in the case of CCE Ludhiana Vs Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 321 (P H), to submit that once the order has been sent by RPAD to the correct address, it has to be treated as delivered to the assessee. He submits that in view of the statutory provisions, the submissions made by ld. Counsel are not sustainable. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 4. Before I proceed further, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Section 37(C) of Central Excise Act, 1944. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or its authorized agent. Once it is sent by RPAD, the obligation of the authority mentioned in the order or taking the decision is over. For whatever reason, if the addressee fails to receive the same he has no remedy under the statute. This is the view taken by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana and in many of the decisions cited by ld.Authorised Representative for the Department. Coming to the decisions cited by ld.Authorised Representative in the case of R.K. Agarwal, it has been nowhere indicated that the order was served by RPAD. On going through the order, it could not be found how the order was served in that case. As regards decision in the case of Matigara Rolling Mills, the order was not received and refused by the person wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the correct addresses of the appellant and is not based on evidence on record. If the order has not been received by authorized person, as claimed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal filed by Shri Ravindra Singh Arora and Shri Amit Wadhwa will be within time. Therefore, for this purpose, the matter is required to be sent back. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by M/s Sewa Castings Pvt. Ltd. is rejected and the appeals filed by Shri Ravindra Singh Arora and Shri Amit Wadhwa are remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals), who shall verify copies of acknowledgement relating to the two appellants and examine whether delivery has been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 37(C) of Central Excise Act, 1944 or not. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
