2015 (1) TMI 1035

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the order was reflected by the appellant, in their memo of appeal, as 25-5-2011. 2. The said fact was noticed by the registry and a defect memo was issued to the appellant directing them either to show the proof of receipt of the order on 25-5-2011 or to file a COD application. In response to the said defect memo, the appellant enclosed an affidavit in respect of their claim that the impugned order was received by them only on 25-5-2011. The said affidavit was accepted by the Registrar vide proceedings dated 30-8-2011 and the appeal was registered with regular number. The stay application was posted for hearing on 9-12-2011 and stay order was passed on 9-12-2011. 3. Thereafter Revenue filed a miscellaneous application dr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ress only. 5. It is only subsequently when they approached the Development Commissioner for de-bonding of the unit, they were advised to taking clearance from the Excise and Customs Department and they approached the Revenue for grant of such clearance, they were told about the present impugned order. Subsequently, the applicant filed RTI application and procured the order on 25-5-2011 and filed the present appeal within the period of three months. As such it is the contention of the learned advocate that inasmuch as the period of limitation of three months start running from the date of receipt of the order and the order having been received by them on 25-5-2011, and the appeal having been filed within three months, there is no del....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eir unit situated at Bhiwadi. A copy of the said letter was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner at Jaipur. The show cause notice was issued subsequently in the year 1999. It is Revenue's own case that the said show cause notice could not be served to the appellant and as such the copy of the same was posted at the factory gate. Admittedly, the appellant did not participate in the adjudication proceedings and after affording one date of hearing, the impugned order was passed. Admittedly, the impugned order sent to the appellant vide registered post was received back undelivered and a copy of the same was pasted at the factory gate of the appellant, which was admittedly closed. 8. Technically, as also in terms of the Hon'ble Punja....