9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing for the Appellant and Shri P. Juneja, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has sufficient cause to explain the delay of one year and 9 months in filing this appeal but the same has not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is submitted that the present appeal arise out of Show Cause Notice dated 31.03.2006 which has suffered two rounds of litigations being remanded by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.9.2014. It is further submitted that the order-in-original passed thereafter is of 31.10.2017 i.e. after three years of directions of this Tribunal for rehearing the matter and the Order-in-Appeal as has been challenged in this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, I observe the chronology of the event to be as follows: S.No. Order Passed on Remarks 1. Show Cause Notice 31.3.2006 order passed alleging wrongful availment of CENVAT credit of Rs. 15,62,562/-. 2 Order-in -Original 21.09.2007 Order passed after one year and 6 months 3 Order-in- Appeal 17.3.2008 Order passed after one and a half years dismissing the appeal filed by the Department 4. FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 53558 /2014 15.09.2014 Order passed after more than 6 years remanding the matter to be reheard in the light of decision of Vandana Global vs. CCE Raipur [2010 (253) ELT 440 (TRI-LB)] 5. order in original at second round ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed post AD or by such other modes of service as are specified under section 37C of the Act. The order dismissing the appeal by accepting dispatch of order by speed post as valid service was set aside. 7. Tribunal Delhi also, in the case of Sunrise Corporation vs. Union of India Amritsar reported in [2012 (280) ELT 148] has held based upon the finding of Larger Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Margra Industries vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in [2006 (202) ELT 244] that it cannot be presumed that the despatch of the order by speed post, in the absence of any proof of delivery results in communication of the order. There is no scope of presumption in taxing matters and deemed service provisions under section 27 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliberate inaction or negligence on part of the applicant. Also I am of the opinion that adjudication on merits shall not be prejudicial to the interest of either of parties to this alliance. 10. Coming to the facts of the present appeal, I observe that the appellant has sent a letter to the department on 9.7.2019 requesting for copy of the order-in-original dated 31.10.2017 informing that the same has not been received by the appellant. I also have perused the response of the department to this letter vide their letter dated 17.7.2019 providing the copy of said order ( Order in Original) to the appellant. The said letter is absolutely silent about the copy of Order-in-Original to have earlier been despatched to appellant either by speed p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
