TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 728
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The ld. Counsel contended that the impugned order is passed ex parte as personal hearing was fixed on 18-10-07 but the applicant came to know about this date on 22-10-07, when he was summoned by one Mr. Murli Agnishewar, Supdt. Customs to appear before him. The ld. DR for Revenue raised preliminary objection that the appeal filed by the applicant is not maintainable as there is a delay in filing appeal as the order is dated 25-10-07 and the appeal has been filed on 22-10-08 and the applicant had stated that the order was received on 17-10-08. The ld. DR further submitted that the applicant did not inform his changed address and the Commissioner had dispatched Order-in-Original dated 25-10-07 on 8-11-07 to the applicant and That the postal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them and they should have contacted the postal authorities and collected the same. (ii) 2000 (126) E.L.T. 65 (Mad) - P. Bhoormal Tirupati v. Addl. Collector of Customs, Madras This judgment was relied upon by the Madras High Court in the case of Jai Enterprises (supra). (iii) 2009 (234) E.L.T. 452 (Tri.-Del.) - Industrial Enterprises v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kanpur It was held in this judgment that when an order is sent by Speed post there is a presumption that it is duly received by the addressee. (iv) 2008 (230) E.L.T. 329 (Tri. - Kolkata) - S.A. Plywood Industries v. Commr. of Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sked for the copy of the said order but it was not given to him, that on 29-7-08 he addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Mumbai to give a hearing in this matter and to send a copy of the order, if already passed, for filing appeal, he again sent a reminder on 10-9-08 to the Commissioner and on his instructions, his counsel sought information under Right to Information Act as to whether any Order-in-Original is passed in respect of the Show Cause Notice dated 16-5-07 issued to him and regarding service of the same and asked for a copy of the O-I-O pertaining to the said Show Cause Notice, that when he received a letter dated. 17-9-08 from the Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Adjn.) Cell on 16-10-08 and though the letter says....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1962 i.e. by tendering the order when particularly someone from the Revenue Recovery Cell went to the applicant's house and when the Supdt. of Customs called him to their office on 22-10-07 to record his statement as the Customs Dept. had his telephone and mobile numbers and, therefore, there is no service of the impugned order on the applicant till 17-10-08, when for the first time the impugned order was received by his Counsel under Right to Information Act. He further relied upon the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Suresh Bafna v. CCE (Appeals), Goa reported in 2009 (234) E.L.T. 606 (Bom) in which it is held that provision for service, as it has an effect on remedy of appeal which party is entitled to, must be strict....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....residence telephone number and mobile number and on the basis of this mobile number, Shri Murli Agnishewar called him to record his. statement on 22-10-07 as seen from the copy of summons. Further, it is only because of the telephone number given that the Revenue Recovery Cell called him for recovering the dues to their office on 22-7-08 but did not hand over the copy of the impugned order. After the Revenue Recovery Cell called the applicant on 22-7-08, he immediately wrote a letter to the Commissioner on 29-7-08 conveying his address and again sent the same letter on 10-9-08 to the Commissioner of Customs as reminder and again on his instruction, his Advocate sought information under the Right to Information Act about the impugned order a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision for service must be strictly construed as that provision has an effect of remedy of appeal, which the party is entitled to. We further find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Margara Industries Ltd. has already considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Bhoormal Tirupati, which was referred to in paras 3 and 6 of the said judgment, and the second judgment cited by ld. DR - Jai Enterprises follows the earlier judgment in the case of P. Bhoormal Tirupati. Since the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has considered the Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P. Bhoormal Tirupati, we are bound to follow the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal and we hold there was no valid ser....