TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 30 days prescribed under the said provision. The Commissioner (Appeals), on this basis, dismissed the appeal as time-barred Hence, the present appeal. Held that- the Revenue, fulfilled the requirement of Section 37C(2) of Central Excise Act, and that the order should be deemed to have been sewed on the person intended. On the basis of the case law cited by the DR. and the specific provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, the only conclusion which can be reached in this case is that, a copy of the adjudication order was served by the department on the appellant on 11-2-05 in terms of Section 37C. In the result, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. - E/741/2007 - A/582/2009-WZB/C-IV/SMB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the ld. counsel submits that the Order-in-Original which was allegedly served on 11-2-05 was not received by any person authorized by the company. According to him, the burden is on the department to show that the order was served on an authorized person or an agent of the company. In this connection, the counsel has claimed support from the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court's judgment in R.K. Agarwal v. CESTAT, New Delhi [2008 (221) E.L.T. 486 (Al1)]. He has also relied on the decision in Matigara Roiling Mills (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Siliguri [2006 (193) E.L.T. 132 (Cal.) 2007(7) S.T.R. 363 (Tribunal). Both sides have referred to the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, The DR. has relied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted to the Central Excise department, to submit such documents to the department and also to receive documents from the department. In this connection, he has referred to an affidavit of the Managing Director of the company, wherein, the Managing Director named three persons and declared that such persons had been authorized during 2004-05 to sign documents, to submit the same to the Central Excise department and to receive documents from the Central Excise department. The affidavit further says that the said persons were no longer in the service of the company. The affidavit is just a declaration, that certain persons had been authorized by the company. It is silent on who authorized the said persons to perform the functions mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow that the appealable order was dispatched by registered post to the party concerned. It has been argued that, even if the postal article is returned undelivered, the presumption of service would subsist. In this connection, the DR. has placed emphasis on S.A. Plywood Industries v. CCE, Siliguri [2008(230) E.L.T. 329 (Tri. - Kolkata)], wherein, it was held that, by dispatching the adjudication order by speed post, the Revenue, fulfilled the requirement of Section 37C(2) of Central Excise Act, and that the order should be deemed to have been sewed on the person intended. On the basis of the case law cited by the DR. and the specific provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, the only conclusion which can be reached in this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
