TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been served on the appellant by virtue of having been sent by registered post A.D. on 23.12.2010. The appellant had not submitted any evidence, leave alone cogent evidence, to rebut the presumption of deemed service. Therefore, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was clearly beyond even the statutorily condonable period and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) was right to conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having been filed beyond even the condonable period of delay. 3. The appellant contended before Commissioner (Appeals) that the order in original dated 23.12.2010 was received on 16.1.2012 and appeal was filed on 27.3.2012 and hence was filed within the stipulated time. 4. We find that the order-in-original dated 21.12.2010 was sent to the appellant by registered post A.D. on 23.12.2010. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 (255) ELT 321 (P H) has categorically held that we have also carefully examined Section 37C of the 1944 Act, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 144 of the Indian Evidence Act. Having examined, we are of the view that it can safely be said that sending the order at correct address by registered post is a sufficient compliance of Section 37C of the 1944 Act. The Hon ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|