Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 259 - AT - Central ExciseService of order - Section 37C (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act - case of Revenue is that the onus of proof lies on the appellant to prove that 12.05.2017 is the actual date of receipt of the Order-in-Original dated 29.02.2016 by the appellant, which the appellant have fail to discharge - Held that:- Admittedly there is no proof of delivery of the Order-in-Original on the appellant - As per Section 37C, it was mandatory on the part of Revenue to serve a copy of the order by registered post or speed post with „acknowledgment due‟ to the assessee or to its authorize agent. Admittedly there is no acknowledgement available on the record of the Revenue supporting the assumed date of service by the Department. The Revenue‟s only ground for holding the said order as having been received by the appellant is that the same was sent by the speed post and does not stand received back by the Revenue - the issue whether the dispatch of order by speed post by itself is sufficient to reflect upon the fact of receipt of the same or not was considered by the Larger bench of Tribunal in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi, [2006 (7) TMI 18 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] in which it was held that it cannot be presumed that the dispatch of the order by speed post, in the absence of any proof of delivery, results in communication of the order. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to hear the appellant on merits and disposed of the appeals in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|