9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f, are as under:- i) The impugned order dated 25.04.2011, was issued by speed post to the appellants and the Ld. Advocate, who appeared in personal hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals). Incidentally the same Ld. Advocate is appearing before the Tribunal. A copy of the speed post booking receipt was placed before the Tribunal. ii) The appellant by their letter dated 15.12.2011 addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), stated that it has come to their knowledge that the Final Orders have been passed by dismissing their appeals vide OIA dated 25.04.2010. and requested to provide a copy of the said order. iii) By letter dated 22.12.2011, the Superintendent (Appeals) informed the appellant that the orders have been dispa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o delay in filing of appeal for the reasons as under:- a) The appellants by letter dated 15.12.2011, requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide certified copy of the order, which was supplied by letter dated 22.12.2011. The appeal was filed on 04.01.2012, well within time. There is no delay. b) Revenue failed to place any evidence for acknowledgement of the speed post delivery. Speed post delivery is not a valid service under Section 37C (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2012 (279) ELT 353 (Bom.). c) By letter dated 22.12.2011 of the Superintendent (Appeals), informed that the impugned order was amended and therefore, date of communic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (MST) dated 25.04.2010, so as to explore the possibility of filing appeal against the same. 3. If the date of the order was wrong, the correct date of the Order-in-Appeals No. 50 and 51 (MST) dated 25.04.2010, may also be certified and given to us. 4. In reply to the above letter, the Superintendent (Appeals), by letter dated 22.12.2011, sent a copy of the impugned order. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below:- Sub:- Service tax Orders-in Appeal Nos. 50/2011 & 51/2011 (MST) copies requested - regarding. Please refer to your letter dated 15.12.2011 on the above subject. The date of Orders in page No. 2 of Orders-in-appeal No. 50/2011 & 51/2011 (MST) may be read as 'Orders dated 25.04.2011' inste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant in person, the order shall not be treated to be communicated to the appellant, cannot be accepted. 6. We agree with the submission of the Ld. AR that even the Revenue placed the evidence in so far as the order was sent to the appellants by speed post, no attempt was made by the appellants to refute this evidence. It is also not disputed the service of order to the Ld. Advocate of the appellant. So, we are unable to accept the contention of the Ld. Advocate that the impugned order was served by letter dated 22.12.2011 of the Superintendent (Appeals). 7. Hence, the case law relied upon up the Ld. Advocate regarding the validity of service under speed post delivery, would not be applicable in the present case , as it is appare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
