TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and against all canons of justice. In this view of the matter, the appellant have received the order-in- original only on 28.07.2020, and thus they have filed the appeal within the prescribed time as allowable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appellant and decide the appeal on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Excise Appeal No. 50863 of 2021 - FINAL ORDER No. 50321/2022 - Dated:- 6-4-2022 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Manish Pushkarna Tarun Chawla, Advocates for the appellant Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The appellant has f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate or manufacture, as the appellant units were working under the compounded levy scheme, under Section 3A of the Act, read with the Pan Masala Chewing Tobacco Compounding Rules, 2008. All the three refund claims were rejected vide common order in original No. 04/2019-30 dated 29.04.2019, observing that the appellant have not ceased to permanently manufacture in its three units under the Central Excise law read with Rules 16 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines Rules, 2017 Rule, 17 of Chewing Tobacco Packing Machine Rules. 4. It is further case of the appellant that the aforementioned order-in- original was not served on them. The appellant company by their letter dated 09.07.2020 have requested the Adjudicating Authority for disposal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delivery of domestic consignment to local and different parts of the country sent by speed post, have been pleased to observe that the apparent maximum average time taken to deliver any consignment in domestic post is 4 to 5 days. It is further observed that from the date of despatch is 06.05.2019, on allowing a period of five days as per information from the postal website, the order in original should have been presumably delivered latest by 11.05.2019. Accordingly, the appeal should have been filed by 09.08.2019 (calculating the limitation from 11.05.2019) including the condonation period of limitation of 30 days. Accordingly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) as per his calculation observed that the appeal have been filed after 505 days f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Department. Evidently, Revenue has mixed the address of the different independent units of the appellant-company, and have used some erroneous address for despatch. Such error in the address has not been taken notice of by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). This erroneous address has also been mentioned on the last page of the order-in-original, mentioning the address to which the order is being despatched. Thus, as the address has been mentioned wrongly for despatch, there cannot be any presumption of service on the appellant. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal and further prayer for remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merit. 8. Learned Authorised Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
