2013 (12) TMI 1511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is waived and appeal itself is taken up for final decision. 2. Heard both sides. In this case the order-in-original was passed against the appellant on 31.3.2008 imposing a penalty of Rs. 26,52,698/-. Penalty was imposed on the appellant on the ground that the appellant received inputs without supplying the materials. Separate proceedings were initiated against the manufacturer which is not the subject matter before me. Order-in-original was sent by Regd. post with acknowledgement due and the postal department, according to endorsements made on the envelope made efforts to serve on several occasions from 4.4.2008 to 14.4.2008 and thereafter the envelope was sent back to the department. According to the appellants, there was no contact wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent. It was the claim of the appellant that these two cannot be called as witnesses. The appellant sought cross-examination of these two witnesses to bring out the fact that actually the order was not delivered by pasting on the premises. The only ground of the appellant is that cross-examination was not allowed and therefore the appellant lost the opportunity to bring out the fact that the order-in-original was received by them only in 2012 and therefore the appeal was filed in time. To substantiate this submission appellant wanted to cross-examine the mahazar witnesses which was not allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Besides this, it was also submitted that appellants are not from the locality where the premises was situated. As regar....