TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not known nor is it clear whether the signatory is the authorized agent of the appellant or not. The appellant has made out a case, the explanation for delay appears to be bona fide and not suspected by the first appellate authority as well and hence the same is accepted - the matter is remanded to the file of the first appellate authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No.: ST/42107/2018 - Final Order No. 43128/2018 - Dated:- 17-12-2018 - Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. G. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Appeal No. 316/2018 (CTA-I) dated 25.06.2018 passed by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the appeal as time-barred without going into the merits since according to him, the Order-in-Original was dispatched by Courier service and received by the appellants on 13.04.2017; the appeal having been filed only on 29.05.2018 with a delay of more than a year was clearly belated. 3.1 Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri. G. Natarajan appearing for the assessee/appellant pointed out that the delivery run sheet relied on by Revenue has the consignee s name as Kumaran which appears to have been collected by a person whose identity is not known; that the appellant being a proprietorship concern run in the name of M/s. Kumanan Enterprises, should have been properly served on the proprietor himself, etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation order on a kitchen boy , who is not even a middle level officer and certainly not an authorized agent of the appellant. The version of the appellant that it learnt of the passing of the adjudication order dated 30-3-2012 only when, in the course of the recovery proceedings, the Department s officials had visited its unit, is certainly believable. The fact that, firstly, the order had not been passed in the presence of the appellant, so as to render its subsequent service a formality, and secondly, that the order came to be passed after an inordinate period of eight months should not have been ignored. This fact should not have been lost sight of by the authorities below as it has inevitably led to a miscarriage of justice. The Inspec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1954 SC 322, State of UP v. Singhara Singh - AIR 1964 SC 358, Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala - (1999) 3 SCC 422 and more recently in Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat - (2014) 8 SCC 425. As observed by this Court in Babu Verghese, it is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.‛ The Inspector who ostensibly served the copy of the order should have known the requirements of the statute and therefore, should have insisted on an acknowledgement either by the appellant or by its authorized agent. The Inspector had a statutory function to fulfil, not a mere perfunctory one. The appeals are accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
