2013 (3) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on 16th April 2010 before this Tribunal and sought stay of recovery of the impugned demand during pendency of the appeal. 3. The learned DR for the Revenue took a preliminary objection that the appeal is barred by limitation hence is not maintainable on the ground that the impugned order has been passed on 31st March, 2009 and the appeal is filed on 16th April, 2010. 4. Before going into the merits of the case, we have to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the learned DR. 5. In reply to the objection raised by the learned DR, the learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant has received the impugned order on 12th March 2010 although the order has been passed on 31st March 2009 and they filed the appeal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....considered. 8. On careful examination of the submissions made by both the sides and going through the records in detail, we find that the appellant has sent a letter dated 3-5-2007 on 18-5-2007 to the department for communicating their advocate's address and their address in USA by Speed Post and a postal receipt of the same is on record. If the said communication is within the terms of law then the appeal is not barred by limitation as it is an admitted fact that impugned order dated 31-3-2009 has not been served on the addresses given by the appellant in their letter dated 3-5-2007. Now the only issue for consideration is whether the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are applicable to the appellant or not? There....