TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appear through an authorised representative. Sub-section (2) defines the expression 'authorised representative' for the purpose of sub-section (1) as inter alia being a regular employee. Section 35-Q, which has been relied upon by the appellant would, therefore, not carry its case any further. In the present case, service was effected on an authorised representative and the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error - The Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in holding that he could not have condoned a delay beyond the period of thirty days under the proviso to Section 35(1) - Following decision of M/s. Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors. [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Agarwal, who was not an authorised representative within the meaning of Section 37-C(1)(a). Accordingly, an application for rectification was filed, which has been dismissed by the impugned order by the Tribunal. Section 35(1) requires an appeal to be filed within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order to the assessee. However, under the proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals), on sufficient cause having been shown, can allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of thirty days. Section 37-C provides that any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under the Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of the order and also given the information of the loss of the order in the press also. Copy of the F.I.R and information made in the "Dainik Jagran News Paper" is collectively marked ANNEXURE-3. The appellant has removed the said employee from the company for his negligence. Copy of Board of Resolutions is enclosed marked ANNEXURE-4. The appellant requested for non receipt of the copy of the order." Even thereafter before the Tribunal in appeal, what was stated on behalf of the assessee was that the order of the Adjudicating Officer was received by one of the employees, Vijay Agarwal, on 26 February 2009 but the said order was lost during his return from the office of the Range Superintendent at Unnao. According to the appellant, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In our view, it is evident that Vijay Kumar Agarwal was infact an authorised signatory of the appellant-assessee. The submission that it is only a legal practitioner who can be an authorised representative is misconceived. Section 35-Q (1) provides that any person who is entitled or required to appear before a Central Excise Officer or an Appellate Tribunal in connection with any proceedings under the Act, otherwise than when required to appear personally for examination on oath or affirmation, may appear through an authorised representative. Sub-section (2) defines the expression 'authorised representative' for the purpose of sub-section (1) as inter alia being a regular employee. Section 35-Q, which has been relied upon by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
