TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no justification offered for the clear delay in preferring the appeal - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No.1327 of 2011 - Final Order No. ST/A/50387/2014-CU(DB) - Dated:- 3-2-2014 - G Raghuram and Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Sameer Agarwal, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, DR. JUDGEMENT Per: G Raghuram: The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I by the adjudication order dated 29.01.2010 confirmed disallowance of cenvat credit of Rs.1,46,87,799/-; directed its recovery and imposed penalty of an equivalent amount under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Against this order the appellant preferred an appeal on 30. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant; and both sides were directed to ascertain the genuineness of the signature appearing on the acknowledgement. 2. On 12.12.2012 when the matter was next taken up, ld. Counsel for the appellant asserted that the signature appearing on the acknowledgement was not of the Accounts Officer, while Revenue contended that the signature was of Sh. Kushal Mani, representing himself to be the Accounts Officer (Cash). In the circumstances it was directed that the relevant papers be furnished to the jurisdictional Commissioner to ascertain the identity of the person who received the order and if there be any doubt the Commissioner should send a paper to the Forensic Laboratory for testing and send a report to the Tribunal, by 23.01.2013. The matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant's representative. The affidavit also that on request of the appellant, vide letter dated 09.11.2010, a photocopy of the order was served on Shri Anil Mishra, Advocate of the appellant, on 09.11.2010; that the Accounts Officer (Cash), BSNL Dehradun was regularly representing and exchanged correspondence with the department from time to time and also complied with other legal formalities pertaining to other matters and in the same matter as well, during adjudication proceedings; and that the Accounts Officer (Cash) corresponded on behalf of the appellant; and hence the officer was the authorised representative of the appellant. 3. Responding to Revenue's Affidavit above, Shri R.D. Yadav, Accounts Officer (Cash), BSNL Dehra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal clearly noticed that there was a serious dispute between the parties as to the date of service of the adjudication order and had directed both the parties to file affidavits setting out the relevant facts as to service of the adjudication order. In response to this order the jurisdictional Commissioner filed an affidavit stating that the adjudication order was served on Shri Kushal Mani, PM, the Accounts Officer (Cash) of the appellant on 28.04.2010 evidenced by a duly signed and stamped acknowledgement. In response, the appellant filed an affidavit on 21.11.2013 which is clearly vague and unresponsive and fails to deal with the specific assertion by Revenue, service of the adjudication order on a person acknowledging such receipt as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fundamental rights. This position is well settled. Suffice to notice that in one of the earliest decisions, the Supreme Court, in the context of an application filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, enunciated this principle in clear and unequivocal terms in Triloki Chand Moti Chand vs. H.D. Munshi - AIR 1970 SC 898. In the case on hand the appellant assumes that there was no delay whatsoever in filing of the appeal, since the copy of the adjudication order was first served on the appellant on 09.11.2010, whereas the order was served on 28.04.2010. There is no explanation offered for the belated filing of the appeal. It is the clear case of Revenue that the order in original was served on the authorised representative of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
