9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of aforesaid, second stay application is dismissed as rendered infructuous. With consent of the parties, appeal is heard finally. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the order against which appeal was preferred before the Tribunal had not been served on the appellant-assessee yet the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. The appellant was not aware of the order. He thus gave information about his address for sending copy of the order. The copy of the order was sent through registered post but not served and there is no proof about its service on the appellant. The delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal was required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid and section 37C(1) of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant before the appellate tribunal was delayed by 3214 days. The appeal was filed on 21.5.2008. The impugned order against which appeal was preferred was passed on 1.4.1999 by the CCE, Jaipur. A copy of the order was sent to the appellant but no material was produced for its service. The appellant furnished the address to the Commissioner of Central Excise to send a copy of the order. The copy of the order was then dispatched through registered post on 4.10.1999 but was not received by the appellant. The appellate tribunal found that the appellant was knowing about the order and made a request to send it at the appellant's address thus, knowing about the order, delay in filing of the appeal cannot be held to be justified. We f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date on which the decision, order, summons or notice is tendered or delivered by post or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1). The perusal of section 37C(1) of the Act of 1944 reveals mode of dispatch and, at the relevant time, it could have been sent through registered post but with acknowledgement due. There is nothing on record to show that after sending copy of the order through registered post, the acknowledgment due was produced. In view of above, mandate of section 37C(1) of the Act of 1944 has not been looked into by the appellate tribunal. In absence of service of copy of the order in the manner prescribed under section 37C(1) of the Act, delay cannot be attributed towards the appellant for challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
