TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of goods destroyed in fire. Based upon the said rejection of remission, Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 8/9/09 confirmed the demand of duty. 2. On receipt of the order by the Additional Commissioner, the appellant came to know about the order of the Commissioner rejecting their request for remission, as the same was mentioned in the Additional Commissioner's order. They wrote a letter on 22/10/09 to the Commissioner, giving reference to the said letter of Additional Commissioner and submitting that they have not received the order of the Commissioner rejecting the request. As such, a prayer was made to supply a copy of the said order. 3. There was no response from the Revenue to the above request. It is seen that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the same was again send by speed post on 7/9/09. 6. The appellant's strongly rebuts the above stand of the Revenue and has filed a list of attendance register of all their employees alongwith the hand-writing experts opinion indicating that the signatures appearing on the order-in-original does not match with anyone of their employees hand writing. It is also the contention of the learned advocate that if the impugned order was handed over to the appellants representative personally, as contended by the Revenue, there was no need to send the same by speed post within a period of three days thereafter. As regards sending impugned orders by speed post, he submits that the same is not a correct method of service in terms of Section 37C (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy stands delivered to them or providing a photocopy of the order to the appellant so as to enable them to challenge the same, the appellant would have done so. Not only that, it is seen that the subsequent number of communications addressed by the appellant does not stand responded to by the Revenue. It is only ultimately on 23/9/10, a communication stands addressed by the Superintendent disclosing that the order-in-original was handed over to the appellant's representative by-hand on 4/9/09. We really fail to understand as to what stand disclosed in the subsequent letter dated 23/9/10, the same information could have been provided by the Revenue in response to the very first letter of the appellant addressed on 22nd October 2009. No respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bjection of the learned advocate that there was no need by sending the order by post within a period of three days when the same was handed over by the Revenue to the appellants representative by-hand on 4/9/09, she submits that there is nothing debarring the Revenue to provide the order by hand as also by post. She also drawn our attention to the note sheet order made on 15/9/10 indicating that since the copy of the order also stands handed over to the appellants representative and issuance of the same would re-start limitation of period of appeal and if the party has lost its copy, they may collect photocopy without by forwarding letter. 11. We have already observed that we are not expressing any opinion on the part of the handing ov....