2014 (7) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant has raised one more point that it is not known to him as to whether the procedure prescribed under Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944 (made applicable to Service Tax matters, as well, through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994) has been followed, or not, before pasting the Order at the old address. I do not find much force in this point of the Appellant. The Appellant's statement to this effect, in the appeal memorandum (that too, not under the 'grounds of appeal' but under the 'facts of case') seems more a 'guesswork' than a 'confirmed' fact, as the Appellant has himself mentioned that observance of procedure under said Section 37C in the instant case, is 'not known' to him. I feel that in cases the appellants, whomsoe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....week of April, 2013. Having been so, it seems to me that even if there is any sort of non-observance of procedure of said Section 37C in this case still it does not come to the rescue of the Appellant as it becomes irrelevant once it is established that the change of address has happened and the same was not informed to the adjudicator. 2. As is clear from the above, the impugned order has admitted that procedure envisaged under Section 37C was not followed but has observed that inasmuch as the appellant was not residing at the same address at which the impugned orders were to be sent by registered post and would not have resulted in any other situation. As such, he has held that non- observation of the procedure does not come to rescue of....