TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (11) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption was claimed under Notification 206/63, dated 30-11-1963. The refund claim was rejected as inadmissible by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector on the ground that the exemption under the Notification was not applicable to iron and steel products manufactured out of small ingots which did not have to be cut. The order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claim was despatched to the party by Registered Post A.D. vide Postal Receipt No. 150, dated 3-6-1974. On 14-6-1976 after nearly two years later the party sent a letter to the Assistant Collector requesting by way of reminder for early sanction of the refund claim dated 3-6-1974. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 20-5-1977 turned down the party's request on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deemed to be proof of non service of the order. Merely because the "Acknowledgment Due" receipt is not traceable at this distant stage due to shifting of records twice from Ludhiana to Patiala and also because the postal authorities, who kept such records are destroyed, and are also not able to produce evidence regarding the delivery of the Registered letter sent on 3-7-1974 at this distant stage, there is no reason to believe that the letter which would have been delivered in the normal course not so delivered. Furthermore, if in the normal course the applicant's case was not decided-and they had not got the order dispatched—they would have reminded earlier and not waited for two years to do so, to know the fate of their claim. There is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 27 of the General Clauses Act states that where any Central Act requires any document to be served by post then unless a different intention appears, the service shall be claimed to be effected by properly prepaying and posting by Registered Post a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of the post. Against this order the party did not file any appeal within the mandatory time limit under Section 35 of the C.E. and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector was therefore, correct in referring to his order dated 3-7-1974 and holding that the said order would prevail and the Appellate Collector erred in holding a contrary v....