Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2004 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (3) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals
2. Proper service of adjudication order

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeals:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed as time-bar due to a delay of three years and four months in one appeal and one year in another. The appellant contended that their factory was closed and taken over by SIDBI due to arrears. They argued that the adjudication order was not served properly as it was pasted on the factory gate without being sent through registered A.D. The appellant cited a decision of the Allahabad High Court to support their argument. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the appellant failed to appear before the adjudicating authority, did not inform about the change of address, and thus the appeal was rightly dismissed as time-bar. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide evidence to show that the adjudication order was not sent through Registered A.D. The Tribunal found that the facts of the case cited by the appellant were not applicable as the order in the present case was indeed sent through Registered A.D. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of proper communication and failure to inform the Revenue about the change of address.

2. Proper service of adjudication order:
The appellant raised concerns about the proper service of the adjudication order, arguing that it was not sent through Registered A.D. and was directly affixed to the factory gate. However, the Tribunal found an endorsement on the order indicating that it was sent through Registered A.D. The appellant's failure to inform the Revenue authorities about the change of address was also highlighted. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not provide any evidence to refute the endorsement on the order. The Tribunal distinguished the cited case where the order was not sent through Registered A.D. from the present case where the order was sent through Registered A.D. before being affixed to the factory gate. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal based on the lack of evidence and failure to inform the Revenue about the change of address.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates