2011 (11) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owledgment Due (RPAD). However, he submits that signature of the person who has received the envelope from the postal authorities, did not tally with the signatures of any of the persons employed by them. They had provided a list of employees to the Department and appellant also verified whether any of the persons has received the letter and found that the same was not received. Further, after correspondence, they also obtained extract of despatch register from the Department and he drew my attention to the extract and submitted that in the same page, 2 envelopes have been sent to M/s A.J.Castings and another person Shri Ravindra Singh Arora. These envelopes have been received and M/s A.J. Castings is a sister concern and Shri Ravindra Sing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 37(C) of Central Excise Act, 1944.   "SECTION 37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc.   (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served, -   a) by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any;   b) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order, summons or notice, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mills, the order was not received and refused by the person who was not authorized by the recipient. Revenue took a view that since the refusal was not by authorized person, it has to be treated as delivered. In this case, it is not the case of the appellant that the order when it was delivered was refused by un-authorised person, but the case was that it is received by unauthorized person. The decisions cited by the ld.Counsel are not of any help to the appellant. The decisions cited by Revenue support the view that once the order or decision is sent by RPAD to the correct address to the recipient, the obligation under statute is fulfilled.  In view of this, the submission of the ld.Counsel in this case that the order has to be held a....