9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, in their memo of appeal, as 25-5-2011. 2. The said fact was noticed by the registry and a defect memo was issued to the appellant directing them either to show the proof of receipt of the order on 25-5-2011 or to file a COD application. In response to the said defect memo, the appellant enclosed an affidavit in respect of their claim that the impugned order was received by them only on 25-5-2011. The said affidavit was accepted by the Registrar vide proceedings dated 30-8-2011 and the appeal was registered with regular number. The stay application was posted for hearing on 9-12-2011 and stay order was passed on 9-12-2011. 3. Thereafter Revenue filed a miscellaneous application drawing the attention to the effect that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en they approached the Development Commissioner for de-bonding of the unit, they were advised to taking clearance from the Excise and Customs Department and they approached the Revenue for grant of such clearance, they were told about the present impugned order. Subsequently, the applicant filed RTI application and procured the order on 25-5-2011 and filed the present appeal within the period of three months. As such it is the contention of the learned advocate that inasmuch as the period of limitation of three months start running from the date of receipt of the order and the order having been received by them on 25-5-2011, and the appeal having been filed within three months, there is no delay requiring any condonation. Alternatively, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner at Jaipur. The show cause notice was issued subsequently in the year 1999. It is Revenue's own case that the said show cause notice could not be served to the appellant and as such the copy of the same was posted at the factory gate. Admittedly, the appellant did not participate in the adjudication proceedings and after affording one date of hearing, the impugned order was passed. Admittedly, the impugned order sent to the appellant vide registered post was received back undelivered and a copy of the same was pasted at the factory gate of the appellant, which was admittedly closed. 8. Technically, as also in terms of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of CCE, Lu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en if there is a delay, the same is not intentional inasmuch as the appellant has established that the order was not received by them and as such the same requires condonation. We order accordingly and accept the appeal on record. 9. We also are of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage as admittedly (as recorded in the preceding paragraph), the impugned order stands passed without hearing the appellant. In fact as per the appellant even the show cause notice was not received by them. The defence plea of the appellant was also not available before the adjudicating authority. As such we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision. Learned advocate fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
