9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed on 26-3-2008, while the appeal was filed on 17-4-2009 i.e. about 387 days after passing of the order. On that ground alone, the appeal has been dismissed. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the copy of the order of the adjudicating authority was received by the appellants on 30-1-2009 and considering the same there was a delay of only 18 days. 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods classifiable under Chapter heading 3923 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were availing exemption benefit under the Notification No. 8/2003-CE., dated 1-3-2003. In view of the investigation carried out by the Department which disclose that the appellants had crossed turnover of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay of 387 days, dismissed the appeal. 5. Placing reliance in the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Margra Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2006 (202) l 244 (Tri.-LB) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 81 (Tri. - LB), learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that mere dispatch of the copy of the orden either by speed post or registered post by itself is not a proof of communication of such order within the meaning of the said expression under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. Learned DR for the respondent on the other hand, drawing our attention to the copies of outward register and the registered in relation to the copies dispatched under speed post as also copy of the let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of proof of actual delivery of the speed post and whether simultaneous affixatioa of the order on the notice board while despatching the same by speed post would amount to sufficient compliance of Section 153(b) of the Customs Act and that in the absence of proof of actual delivery by speed post the Tribunal had concluded that there was no valid service, with that observation it was held that in S.A. Plywood Industries case the acknowledgement produced by the Revenue proved that the order of the adjudication was sent by Speed Post and the order was therefore deemed to have been sewed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 37C of the said Act, and in that context the decision of the Larger Bench was not of any help to the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants and that therefore, they had requested for another copy of the order. 9. The facts on record therefore disclose that though the copy was received by the appellants, the same was misplaced and it was not traceable. In those circumstances, the appellants could lay their hands on the copy of the order only on 30-1-2009. Undoubtedly, within ninety days from the said date i.e. from the day the appellants could lay their hands on the copy, they preferred the appeal. Simultaneously, it is also to be noted that the appellants had already paid the entire duty amount and the interest payable thereon to the Department, by 29-3-2006., much prior to the disposal of the matter by the adjudicating authority. It is also undisputed fact that they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
