2007 (8) TMI 758

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issue of show cause notice which resulted in confirmation of demand in Order-in-Original dated 22.6.1998. The appellant company filed an appeal before Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) in his order dated 7.12.1998 directed the petitioner company to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2/- lakh. As the amount ordered by the Commissioner (A) was not deposited, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order Order-in-Appeal No.33/99 dated 22.2.1999 dismissing the appeal of the appellant. 3. Shri Laxminarayan Goyal, the learned Consultant appeared for the appellant. He informed the Bench that the petitioner company had incurred huge losses, which ultimately resulted in the closure of the factory. The APSEB had also disconnected the power supply on 29.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....06 (76) RLT 433 (Tri.-LB) (iii) R. S. Inds. Vs. CCE - 2006 (195) ELT 184 (Tri.-Del.) (iv) Vishnuvardhan Paper Mill Vs. CC, Chennai - 2001 (137) ELT 1350 (Tri.-Chennai) (v) Rajshree Dying and Printing Vs. UOI - 2005 (190) ELT 9 (Guj.) In all these above decisions, it has been held that in absence of any proof of service of the order as required under Section 153 of the Customs Act or the relevant Central Excise Act, is sufficient to condone the delay. Shri Goyal stated on merits also the appellants have a very good case. 4. Shri K. Sambi Reddy, learned JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Shri K. Sambi Reddy addressing to the comments given by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad stated that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder, which is also been reported in 2007 (81) RLT 184 (CESTAT - Bang.) - Kamini Ispat Ltd. Vs. CC and CE (Appeals), Hyderabad, wherein delay was condoned as there was no proof of service. When the attention of the Consultant was drawn to the proof of service by registered post, he pointed out that the order should have been sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and there is no evidence that it has been sent by registered post with acknowledgment due. He said from the records, it is seen that they have affixed only a stamp for value of Rs. 15/- only, whereas for registered post with acknowledge due, the amount would be higher. In view of these things and in view of the fact that there is a strong case on merit, he requested the b....