TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s dismissed the appeal having been filed beyond the extended period of thirty days after the expiry of limitation period prescribed for filing the appeal. The appellants were engaged in manufacture of Tinted Glass and non-Tinted Glass, Mirror Reflective Glass and Oxygen classifiable under chapter heading No. 7002.10, 7002.20, 7006.90 and 2804.90 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were also availing benefit of Cenvat Credit. In terms of order dated 15th December 2008, the Assistant Commissioner, Allahabad confirmed the demand in relation to the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,30,372/- alongwith the interest thereon and equal amount of penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010, the Assistant Commissioner, Allahabad was required to clarify the date of service of the copy of the order upon the appellants. Under letter dated 11th of June 2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Allahabad informed that the impugned order was despatched on 22nd December 2008 and was sent vide registered post RAL 801 dated nil, but the same was returned back by the postal authority on 26th December 2008 with remarks that factory was closed and receiver was not available. Again this order was sent to Range Office for service upon the party. The Range Officer intimated that the said order was served upon the party by Sector Officer on 25th February 2009, but acknowledgement was misplaced due to shifting of Range Office. In support of the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umentary proof cannot be accepted. 7. As regards, the affidavit filed by the Deputy General Manager of the appellants, it cannot be disputed that he has made a categorical statement that the order dated 15th December 2008 was received by the appellants on 4th May 2009. The said statement has also been verified as true and correct to his knowledge based on the records. However, mere such statement in the affidavit is difficult to be believed for more than one reason. 8. The affidavit has been filed by one Shri R.K. Sinha, stating that he is the Deputy General Manager of the appellants company and he is fully conversant of the facts. The affidavit, however, does not disclose as to since when he has been Deputy General Manager ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the absence of cogent materials in support of his claim. Being so, merely on the basis of the affidavit, it cannot be said that the appellants has established their claim about receipt of the copy of the order on the particular date. 9. As against the above fact, the letter dated 17th March 2010 by Superintendent in relation to the matter in issue discloses that the office had disclosed that the copy of the order was served upon to the appellants on 25th February 2009 by the Sector Officer and in that regard copy of XT-I diary snowing journey and service of the copy was sought to be relied upon. 10. The relevant page of the copy of the said diary relating to 25th February 2009 and the journey of the department employee and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Encl. : one page. Sd/- Superintendent Range Naini -III C. EX Div.-I, Alld." 11. The entry in the diary quoted above clearly disclose endorsement to the effect that the sector officer had gone to the office of the appellant on 25-2-2009 and had delivered the copy of the order. It is not the case of the appellant that the sector officer had delivered something other than the copy of order on 25-2-2009 in their office. It cannot be disputed that the said diary was maintained in regular course of exercise of their duties by the Government employees. There is no allegation of any mala fide against the said Government employees. It is not the case of the appellants that the employees who have made the entry was in any ma....