TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmunication purpose. Thus finding favour with Revenue action having pasted the order on the factory gate on 5.12.07 for fulfilling the legal obligation placed upon them in terms of section 37C. The appellant had not made any averment to show that only first page of the order was pasted. Also it is seen that appellant having addressed a letter in December, 2007, for supply of copy of impugned order never further made any efforts to procure a copy immediately. He having came to know that order stand served upon them in December, 2007 and the appellant being aware that an appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of order, made no further efforts for procurement of the order - as the Commissioner (Appeals) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed post which is not the correct manner of serving the decision, in terms of provision of section 37C. He draws my attention to letter of Jt. Commissioner (Review) dated 4.10.10 addressed to Asstt. Registrar, admitting that impugned order in original number 11/07 dated 28.9.07 was sent to the appellant through speed post and the same was received back undelivered with postal remarks as no firm in the said name exists, hence returned . As such, he submits that order having been sent by speed post, the service cannot be held to be in terms of provisions of section 37C. 3. Countering the arguments learned AR Ms Shweta Bector submits that in any case impugned order was pasted on factory gate on 5.12.07 and the applicant-appellant came to know ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1999 and the proceedings against the appellant were initiated by way of issuance of show cause notice in April, 2006. The appellants never bothered to give complete new address for communication purpose. However, it is the contention of the learned advocate that the appellants office address was available with the Revenue and they should have posted the letter to their head office address. 6. In any case, I find favour with Revenue action having pasted the order on the factory gate on 5.12.07 for fulfilling the legal obligation placed upon them in terms of section 37C. It would have been a different matter, had the appellant not come to notice about the pasting of the said order in their factory gate. Admittedly, the appellant came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to condone. As per the provisions of Section 35B, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days. This issue stands settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur [ 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)]. Inasmuch as the appeal was admittedly filed beyond the condonable period, from the date of receipt of order, I am of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the same as barred by limitation. 8. In view of the foregoing, both the impugned orders of Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting both the appeals as barred by limitation, are upheld and the present appeals are rejected. (Pronounced in the open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
