TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed appearance on 7.2.2012, when the other advocate appearing for the appellant agreed to the date of receipt of order by the assessee and consequent delay of 233 days in filing the appeal cannot be accepted – there was no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as there is no mistake – Decided against Assessee. - Appeal No. 2184-2185 of 2010-EX[DB] - - - Dated:- 21-6-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Respondent: Shri V.P. Batra, DR ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): The present ROM applications stand filed in respect of final order No. A/178-179/12 Ex (Br) dated 7.2.12 vide which the Tribunal upheld the order of Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeals filed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lice Choki-in-charge, Unnao in which he stated that the above said Order-in-Original has been received from the Range office on 26.02.09, and same lost during the way to the office of the appellant No. 1. The appellant has procured the said Order-in-Original from the Revenue and filed the appeal on 17.12.09. In the appeal, the appellants have quoted in Form No EA-I the date of communication of the order as 21.10.09. I find that the said impugned order has been served to Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, employee of the appellant No. 1 on 26.02.09 by the Range office, Unnao. The appellant has filed said appeal on 17.12.09 after expiry of prescribed limit of 60 days and for the reason of delay by 233 days, the appellant stated that the delay has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serve the copy to him, he very fairly admitted that no such name was disclosed to the Revenue. In terms of provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, the order is required to be served by tendering the same to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent. Admittedly, the order in original was intended for M/s. Raja Ratan Industries Ltd. The said M/s. Raj Ratan Industries Ltd. being the limited company, cannot receive the orders by himself and the same has to be received by an employee of the said limited company. It is not the plea of the applicant that Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal was not their employee during the relevant period and has not received the order from Range office on 26.2.09. The contention of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
