TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guous decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts referred [2012 (6) TMI 304 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and [2013 (4) TMI 131 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] as well as in the impugned order with regard to the service by speed post in the context of Section 37C ibid. As an aside, it can also be successfully contended that if speed post was to be treated or intended to be treated by the legislature as equivalent to the registered post the legislature would not have amended Section 37C in the year 2011 to specifically include speed post as one of the prescribed means of service of decision, orders and summons. - Decided against the revenue. - ST/55052/2013-CU(DB) - - - Dated:- 21-7-2014 - G Raghuram and R K Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A K Batra, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice. 2. The appellants in their rejoinder have not contested the receipt of Show Cause Notice by them but have asserted that the adjudication order was not received by them and there is no evidence of such receipt. They have further contended that sending the Order-in-Original by speed post does not meet the requirement of Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944 when no evidence of delivery thereof is produced. They referred to the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2012 (26) STR 299 (Bom.) which after duly considering the judgement of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) came to a clear finding that sending order by speed post is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the arguments of both the sides. It is seen that the Bombay High Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has clearly held that a speed post is not a sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in that judgement they had taken note of the judgement of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. referred to by the ld. A.R. In the case of Mirzapur Electrical Industries Ltd. (supra), it is seen that the order sent by speed post was returned undelivered and thereafter the order was pasted on the factory gate. It is evident that in the present case there is no evidence that the order sent by speed post was ever delivered to the appellants or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the notices for personal hearing. The ld. A.R. has not given any evidence or even claimed that the notices for personal hearing were delivered to the appellants. Further the said stay order had merely adjourned the matter and had neither granted waiver of pre deposit nor stayed recovery. The ld. A.R. has not spelt out what modification is sought by Revenue. As such the Revenue's application for modification of the said stay order does not succeed because of lack of sufficient grounds as well as the lack of clarity as to what sort of modification is sought given the fact that the said order has neither granted waiver of pre deposit nor stayed recovery. 6. In the light of the foregoing, we do not find sufficient merit in the Misc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
