https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267559 A certificate of posting or UPC evidences dispatch only, not delivery; where receipt is denied and authenticity is disputed, the sender bears the burden of proving service, and the alleged opt-out letter was not shown to have reached the department. Under the compounded levy framework, an assessee who elected duty payment under Rule 96ZO(3) could not later switch to assessment on actual production under section 3A(4) for the same period, so the duty demand was upheld. However, where the governing scheme itself prescribed the consequence for default, Rule 209 was not attracted on the facts found, and the separate penalty was deleted. en-us Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Nov 2015 15:20:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267559 A certificate of posting or UPC evidences dispatch only, not delivery; where receipt is denied and authenticity is disputed, the sender bears the burden of proving service, and the alleged opt-out letter was not shown to have reached the department. Under the compounded levy framework, an assessee who elected duty payment under Rule 96ZO(3) could not later switch to assessment on actual production under section 3A(4) for the same period, so the duty demand was upheld. However, where the governing scheme itself prescribed the consequence for default, Rule 209 was not attracted on the facts found, and the separate penalty was deleted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267559