TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellants could be seen at the relevant space. Following decision of S.A. Engineering Works vs. CCE, Vadodara [2013 (11) TMI 705 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - order passed by first appellate authority is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to him, after setting aside the OIA dated 13.3.2014, for de-novo consideration of matter on merits after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/11407,11408/2014 - ORDER No. A/12090-12091/2014 - Dated:- 24-11-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Krishna Kumar Shri P.D. Rachchh, Advocates For the Respondent : Shri K. Sivakumar, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (g) Green View Radio Service vs. Laxmibai Ramji - [AIR 1990 SC 2156] 3. Shri K. Sivakumar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the first appellate authority and made the bench go through the correspondence exchanged between the department and the postal authorities. It was his case that as per the reports received from postal authorities the said order was delivered to the appellants on 21.3.2013. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is as to what should be the date of receipt of an order-in-original issued by the department to the appellants. As the issue involved lies in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 25-2-2011. However it is not coming out from this communication as to whom this document was delivered. There are no signatures from the appellant produced by the Revenue to the extent that only appellant has received the said communication. Under the circumstances the law laid down by Supreme Court in (AIR) 1990 SC 2158 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The same issue has been also been decided by the larger bench in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi [2008 (10) S.T.R. 81 (Tri.-LB)] where it was held that validity of dispatch by speed post without proof of delivery and simultaneous affixing of order on the notice board is not considered to be the proof of delivery. The judgment of CCE Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manner provided in sub-sections (1) and (2). Section 37 comprises two limbs; clause (a) is alone relevant for our purposes and this provision enjoins that any decision or order shall be served by tendering such decision or order or notice or sending it by registered post with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent. 6. On an interactive application of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 37C the conclusion is compelling that where Revenue seeks to serve an adjudication order by sending it through by registered post, proof of service/proof of delivery of the communication on the assessee is an integral component of facts relevant to an inference as to the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
