2013 (11) TMI 1216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r was passed on 12.4.2006 and the appeal stands filed on 12.1.2011 and the appellants have not filed COD application. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that as the final order was passed on the basis of appeal being time barred and there being no COD application and he prays that the same may be recalled. Inasmuch as objection as regard that appeal being barred by limitation was never communicated to them and the matter was earlier listed for disposal of stay petition. 3. In view of above, we allow ROA application, and recall the final order No.936/2011-Ex dated 4.11.2011. 4. Now, the appellants have filed COD application. As per ld. Advocate, the impugned order was passed on 12.4.2006, which was received by them ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 'closed'. Accordingly the Superintendent (Appeals), Jaipur vide his letter dated 21.4.2006 requested the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhilwara for serving said order in appeal under their acknowledgement which may be sent to the appellant. 6. Para 4 of letter dated 31.7.2013 reads as under:-              4. The field staff, in pursuance of this, tried to contact a responsible person/officer of the appellant unit, which was lying closed for last 2 years. During this course, when no such person/officer could be found at the unit, at his residence at B-78, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara. Since, he also was not available at his residence, the said OIA was serve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said order in appeal was never pasted to the residential door. 9. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and have gone through the records placed before us. Admittedly the order in appeal was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 12.4.2006 and the same was sent to the appellant on the available address under the normal course under registered AD. Admittedly the appellant's factory was lying closed and the said registered AD was received back to the department with the remarks 'closed'. The Revenue thereafter did not sit idle and try to serve impugned order on the assessee in terms of law on the subject. The Superintendent (Appeals), Jaipur received back the impugned order undelivered and requested the jurisdictional ....