Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2013 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 531 - HC - Central ExciseApplication for condonation of delay dismissed - Whether the Tribunal could dismiss the appeal when defect memos were returned back to the registry? - Held that:- The appellant has filed memo of appeal disclosing a address. The defect memos were sent under registered A.D. post on the addresses so given. Once, the letter has been sent under registered A.D. post, the same is presumed to be delivered in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897. See Harcharan Singh v. Shivrani [1981 (2) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT] Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub Section (1) of Section 37-C has no applicability to the facts of the present case in as much Sub Section (1) (a) contemplates that the notices issued under the Act shall be served by tendering the notice by registered post to the person intended or its authorized agent with acknowledgment due. Sub Clause (b) and (c) would be applicable in the event, notice cannot be served in terms of Sub Clause (a). Once, the appellant has not removed the objections within a reasonable period of the defective memo of appeals, the memorandum of appeal has been rightly rejected being barred by limitation. Since, the appellant has taken more than six years to remove the defects in the appeal, it is thus beyond the period of limitation - against assessee.
|