9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 pertains to Order No. A/10044/2015 dated 9th January, 2015 in Appeal No. E/11157/2014, E/Stay/11788/2014. Considering the scope of the appeals, we deem it appropriate to dispose the appeals finally. 2. In our view, the following question arises for our consideration : (a) "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law respondent no. 3 was required to serve a copy of the impugned order dated 9th January, 2015 upon the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay ? 3. The brief facts are as follows : The appellant is engaged in manufacture of Partially Oriented Yarn ("POY") falling under Chapter Sub-heading No.5402.32, Knitted Texturised Yarn falling under Chapter Sub-heading 60.62 and Grey Fabrics falling under Chapter Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt preferred appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) which came to be rejected on the ground of delay. Thereafter appeals were by the appellant to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, West Zonal Branch, Ahmedabad which appeals came to be rejected by the impugned orders dated 9th January, 2015. These orders have been called into question in the present appeal. 6. Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Commissioner had dismissed the appeals as time barred. The appellant had through its consultant urged before the CESTAT the fact that the order of adjudication dated 19th March, 2007 was not communicated to them and they had obtained copy under the RTI Act and thereafter filed an appeal on 10th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, the only difference being the amount adjudicated on the face of show cause notice for non payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty by the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,22,435/-. On the unit being closed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was served by affixing the same as recorded in panchnama dated 26th September, 2008. Later the company filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the same as time barred and not maintainable under Section 35 of the Act. That is how the company preferred an appeal before the CESTAT on 10th January, 2014. 9. Having heard counsel, in view of the fact that the order was not served on the company and on account of closure of the company as recorded above, there was no justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
