2004 (3) TMI 663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Mrs. Charul Barnwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - In this appeal, filed by M/s. Periwal Bricks Ltd., the issue to be decided is, whether they had filed the appeal against the Order-in-Original before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the time limit specified under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. 2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that as they had filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14-5-2003, it was within the time limit of 60 days prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. He, further, submitted that the presumption of the Commissioner (Appeals) that since the Order-in-Original was sent by registered post, the same would be treated as served on the appellants is ultravirous of the provisions....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s also mentioned that the enquiries reveal that the order, sent by registered post on 27-9-2002, has not been returned by the postal authorities; that, moreover, when the copy of the Order-in-Original was sent to the appellants on 9-4-2003, it was specifically mentioned in the covering letter that their contention that they had not received the copy of the order, is not correct as the original cop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have also not disputed the fact mentioned by the Inspector while sending the copy to them that one Sh. Jagdish Periwal had also obtained the copy of the order from the Range office. We also observe that as per their own version, they came to know about the issuance of the said Order-in-Original when they received the letter dated 10-1-2003 from the Range Superintendent. Even after the receipt of ....