9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. ShriAK. Madan, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Justice S.N. Jha, President (For the Bench)]. - This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner dismissing the appellant's appeal summarily as time barred. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that were the appellate authority is of the opinion that the appeal is time barred and intends to dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the long gap between date of the order-in-original i.e. 29-6-2006 and the alleged date of service of a copy thereof, he called for report from the Additional Commissioner about the date of service and it transpired from the report submitted by the Superintendent that copy of the order had been delivered to the appellant by registered post on 4-7-2006. The Commissioner noted that the delay being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention reliance was placed on the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 244 (Tri.-LB) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 81 (T) 4. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act provides for the manner of service of decisions, orders, summons etc. It lays down that any decision or order etc. shall be served on the person fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter No. CE-3/792/SK Airport 2006-07 dated 23-8-2007 informed the Department that registered letter No. 792 dated 29-6-2006 (by which copy of the order-in-original had been sent to the appellant) was delivered to the addressee on 4-7-2006. There is no reason to disbelieve the correctness of the said report. There was thus adequate proof service of the copy of the order. It may be mentioned that ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner - 2008 (221) E.L.T 163 (S.C.)]. The appeal in the instant case was filed after 228 days i.e. well beyond the extendable period and therefore, no meaningful purpose would have been served, or would be served even now if the Commissioner were to be directed to give opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 6. We find no scope for taking another view of the matter and interfering w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
