2015 (3) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... M. Saxena For the Respondent : Shri M S Negi, AR. ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa: The application is for condoning the delay of 387 days in filing of the present appeal. The appellant's contention is that as the impugned order dated 30.8.2011 was never received by them and it is only when the Revenue approached them for recovery, they procured the order from the Department on 25.9.2012....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n record to show that speed post sent by them was actually received by the appellant. However, he submits that the said impugned order was also sent to the Manager of the appellant company and he is not disputing the receipt or non-receipt of the same and as such is presumed to have been received the same. If that be so, there is reasonable presumption that appellant must have received the impugne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceipt of the order by the Manager becomes irrelevant. 5. After considering submissions made by both the sides, we find that the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2012 (26) STR 299 (Bom.) has held that sending of order by speed post is not sufficient compliance to the provisions of Section 33 C(1)(a) of CEA, 1944 and the order is requ....