TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d post with acknowledgement due on 17-1-2014. There is no document on record to indicate that the notice was not delivered by the postal authorities and was returned undelivered. Once notice for hearing has been issued to an appellant by RPAD in accordance with the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act 1944, it has to be presumed that the notice has been received by the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x parte vide Final Order No. 51038/2014, dated 21-2-2014. At the time of hearing of the appeal on 21-2-2014, when this matter had been called, none representing the appellant had appeared. 2. Heard both sides in respect of restoration of application. 3. Shri Jatin Singhal, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that prior to its hearing on 21-2-2014, the matter had been listed for h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Govind Dixit, ld. Department Representative, opposed the restoration application pleading that notice for adjourning the matter to 21-2-2014 had been issued by the Registry on 8-1-2014 by RPAD; that the communication about date of hearing sent on 8-1-2014 by RPAD has not been returned undelivered, and that in view of this, it has to be presumed that the communication regarding date of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the records. From the records, it is clear that prior to 21-2-2014, this matter had been listed for hearing on 20-12-2013 and at that time this matter had been adjourned to 21-2-2014 and the notice in this regard had been issued by Registered post with acknowledgement due on 17-1-2014. There is no document on record to indicate that the notice was not delivered by the postal authorities and wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
