TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly filed the appeal in time i.e. within the period of three months. Thus, the appeal is not time bar. In support of their claim the applicant referred to letter dated 16-4-2005 written by them to the Chief Commissioner, New Customs House, New Delhi wherein they have mentioned that they have not received the order-in-original against which demand has been raised. They also requested the Superintendent adjudication under their letter dated 28th June, 2005 intimating that they have not received the adjudication order through mail and requested to provide despatch details. Affidavit was filed by Shri K.K. Khosla, Director of the applicant concerned that they have collected the photocopy of the impugned order-in-original on 15-4-2005 because of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t require that effective service should be effected by the appellant receiving it . It was therefore pleaded that in view of this decision since order-in-original was sent to the applicants on 6-7-2004 by speed post and it has not been returned back un-served, it has to be treated as served on the applicant. 4. The applicant relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajshree Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported as 2005 (190) E.L.T. 9 (Guj.) pleaded that in the said decision the Hon ble High Court has held that averments made by the petitioner regarding non service of order of Commissioner (Appeals), have remained uncontroverted. Reliance on behalf of the respondents on provisions of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. Revenue have contended that in case of Amrul Mahalder v. CC (Prev.) Kolkata - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 492 (Tribunal) has taken a view that when the show cause notice is sent by registered post and it has not come back then the appellants are required to produce evidence that they have not received the impugned order. In the present case neither the Revenue has establish that the show cause notice has been served on the applicant nor the applicant has produce any evidence that they have not received the impugned order except filing an affidavit that they have not received the impugned order. We also find that the Tribunal has taken a view that when notice or order is sent by registered post and it has not been received back then it should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
