TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on under Section 11AB and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,42,197/- on them under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC. This order dated 16/03/12, according to the Department, was sent to the appellant by speed post on 16/03/12. According to the appellant this order was not received by them and they came to know about the same only when they received notice on the same day i.e. on 16/03/12 from the Department directing them to deposit forthwith the duty of Rs. 20,42,197/- alongwith interest and also penalty of equal amount. The appellant, thereafter, on 13/04/12 wrote back to the Range Superintendent that the order referred to in the Range office letter dated 16/03/12 has not been received by them and requested him to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the consent of both sides, the matter is heard for final disposal. 3. Shri Krishnamohan K. Menon, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that in terms of the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the mode of service of any decision, order or notice is by registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD), that in this case, the order-in-original had been dispatched by speed post, that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (279) E.L.T. 353 (Bom.) has held that sending of order by speed post is not a sufficient compliance to the provisions of Section 37C (1) of the Central Excise Act, as in terms of the provisions of this Section 37C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order on the website of the speed post on the basis of EC number, but the information on the website was showing that the consignment has not been found and thus it cannot be said that the order was delivered to the appellant, and that in view of this, the impugned order dismissing the appeal as time barred is not correct. 4. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and cited the judgments of Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mirzapur Electrical Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad reported in 2014 (300) E.L.T. 496 (All.), wherein with regard to the provisions of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act regarding mode of delivery of the order, Hon'ble H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n filing of appeal cannot be condoned. Thus, the only point of dispute in this case is as to whether the appellant had received the order-in-original dated 16/03/12 in the month of March itself or as contended by them, they received this order on 18/06/12, when as per the endorsement on the last page of the order, a Xerox copy of the same was supplied to them. 7. Though the order dated 16/03/12 was dispatched to the appellant by speed post, according to the appellant the same was not received by them. It is seen that on the same day i.e. on 16/03/12, the Jurisdictional Range Officer had also addressed a letter to the appellant directing them to deposit forthwith the duty demand of Rs. 20,42,197/- confirmed against the appellant alongwith....