Presumption of due service and timing of SEZ benefit amendment defeated recall of the stay order.

Presumption of due service was upheld where the hearing notice had been sent by speed post and reached the destination before the hearing date; an inward stamp alone, without affidavit or rebuttal evidence, was insufficient to displace that presumption, so recall on alleged non-service was rejected. On merits, the Tribunal found no prima facie case because the benefit for SEZ developers arose only from the amendment notified on 31-12-2008, while the relevant period predated that amendment; the earlier circular and amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not support recall for supplies made during that period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the stay application should be recalled on the ground of alleged non-service of notice and whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case on merits for grant of relief.

Analysis: The notice of hearing was found to have been sent by speed post and to have reached the destination well before the hearing date. The inward stamp relied upon by the appellant was held insufficient to displace the presumption of due delivery, particularly in the absence of supporting affidavit or rebuttal evidence. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the extension of the benefit to SEZ developers was introduced only by the amendment notified on 31-12-2008, whereas the relevant period was June 2008 to October 2008. The earlier circular and the amendment to Rule 6(6)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not justify recall in respect of supplies made during that period.

Conclusion: The application for recall was not maintainable on the alleged service ground and the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case on merits. The request for recall was rejected.

---