TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in fact order was never served upon him. The appellant in the present appeal in hand failed to discharge its burden of proof - this is a case of service on any authorized person, nor the case of closure of factory nor the case of rebuttal of presumption of by appellant - both stay application and appeal fail to succeed. Accordingly both are dismissed. - ST/A NO. 431/2012 - 59/A/475/12-CUS† - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a case where the appellants have shifted from the said premises to which the said letter was addressed and delivered. I also find that other correspondence such as show-cause notice and orders issued to the appellants during the corresponding period 2007-08 and 2008-09 were served upon them at the same address and there was no dispute regarding service of the said orders etc in other cases. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority is apparent in this case. 4. Learned DR invites attention to page 55-56 of the appeal folder to demonstrate that the registered letter was addressed to the appropriate address and delivery thereof was confirmed by the postal department in terms of evidence they sent to the adjudicating authority. Bona fide of the Revenue officer is established from such communication and in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on the decision in the case of Matigara Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd v. CCE 2006 (193) ELT 132 (Cal.). This is a case where letter was sent to a factory which was under closure and closure was within the knowledge of the department. Such factual aspect is not in the present case. 7. The appellant also relied on the judgment in the case of CCE v. R.R. Tea Co. 1987 (31) ELT 728 (Trib.). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in Mohan Bottling Co (P.) Ltd.'s case ( supra ), it can safely be said that sending the order at correct address by registered post is a sufficient compliance of section 37-C of Central Excise Act, 1944 and it is for the assessee to rebut the presumption of service by cogent evidence that in fact order was never served upon him. The appellant in the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
