2014 (4) TMI 1069

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve examined the case records. I find that the subject appeal, against the impugned O-I-O, dated 23-12-2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, was received/filed in this office on 17-1-2013. Though the appellant claimed that the impugned order was received by him on 15-12-2012, it is on record that the said Order, dated 23-12-2011, was initially dispatched by the Department, by RPAD, which was returned by the Postal authorities with a remark as "refused", on 24-1-2012, as was categorically stated by the counsel representing the appellant, during the personal hearing. Subsequent to the return of the order by postal authorities with the remark as "refused", the department served the said order by pasting the same at the address of the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....use (a), by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order, summons or notice, as the case may be, is intended; (c)     if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clauses (a) and (b), by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice. 4. In this case the O-I-O was dispatched by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) and the postal authorities returned the envelope containing the order with a remark on the envelop "refused". The learned cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng of order on notice board would amount to fulfilment of legal requirement as per the provisions of Section 153 of Customs Act, 1962. In this case, the issue involved is not the same. There is no dispute in this case that there was no service and there was no simultaneous affixing of the order on the notice board or on the door of the residence simultaneously. Therefore, this decision would not apply. In the case of Ashok R. Mistry, it was held that speed post without proof of delivery cannot be considered as a valid dispatch of the order and therefore, the issue is not comparable. In the case of Shakti Foam Udyog, there was mere dispatch of order through RPAD and there was no proof of service. In this case, the Department has accepted tha....