https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209516 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. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209516 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209516