TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eemed to have been properly effected when a letter properly addressed, pre paid and posted by registered post - Following decision of Miles India Ltd. Vs Assistant Collector [1984 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Collector or Central Excise Vs. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills [1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], prima facie case is not in favor of assessee. - appellant directed to make full pre-deposit - stay denied. - C/56667/2013-CU(SM) - STAY ORDER NO. 58119/2013 - Dated:- 28-6-2013 - Manmohan Singh, J. For the Appellant : Ms M Rashi, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri R K Verma, AR PER : Manmohan Singh Stay application No. C/Stay/57194/2013 have filed by M/s Rahul Craft, Jaipur-I against the Order-in-Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said letter "that the said Order-in-Original was dispatched to the Appellants at their address L-3, Krishna Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur but the same had been received back undelivered with remarks 'left'. Therefore, as per the Customs Law the said order has been pasted on 31.01.2011 on the Notice Board of this office." 5. That appellant had changed their address to D-69/B, Shiv Heera Path, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Jaipur much earlier than the dispatch of the said Order-in-Original to their old address i.e. L-3, Krishna Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Commissioner (Appeals) examined all the facts and found that Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that:- "Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard of the customs house." 9. He also examined the judgment of Hon'ble High Court Madras in the case of P. Bhoormal Tirupati Vs Additional Collector of Customs, Madras reported in 2000 (126) ELT 65 (Mad.) and held that impugned order is deemed to have been served on/received by the appellant on 31.01.2011 when it was pasted on the Notice Board of the Customs House. He also examined the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Ltd. Vs Assistant Collector reported in 1987 (3) ELT 641 (SC) holding that the Tribunal as well as Customs authorities are bound by the statutory period of limitation. This view was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Doaba Cooperative Sugar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, shall be served (a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or notice or sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended or to his agent; sub-section (b) of Section 153 need not be referred to as it does not arise in this case. A notice had been sent by registered post duly addressed to the Appellant. The section requires that notice shall be served by sending it by registered post to he person for whom it is intended. The section does not require that effective service should be effected by the appellant receiving it. This position is made clear by reference to section 27 of the General Clauses Act which states that where any Central Act requires any document to 'be served by post, then, unless a different intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
