TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmed on 25.2.2011 and the order was dispatched by Registered Post-AD, which was received at registered address on 5.3.2011. The appellant claimed that they did not receive order and obtained a copy of order under RTI on 14.9.2013 only. Thereafter, they filed an appeal on 1.10.2013. The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding the same to be barred by limitation. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant produced two Affidavits. One of them was of Mohd. Akram Khan, wherein he had deposed that he is living in Delhi since 2005 and has authorized his brother, Mohd. Arshad Khan to take care of the business. The second affidavit was from Mohd. Arshad Khan, wherein he has deposed that he came to know about the issue of such order on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: "37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. - (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served, - (a) by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized agent, if any; (b) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the appellant, so as to render its subsequent service a formality, and secondly, that the order came to be passed after an inordinate period of eight months should not have been ignored. This fact should not have been lost sight of by the authorities below as it has inevitably led to a miscarriage of justice. The Inspector of the Department should have meticulously followed and obeyed the mandate of the statute and tendered the Adjudication Order either on the party on whom it was intended or on its authorized agent and on one else. It is not the respondents case that Shri Sanjay was the authorized agent. Even before us, despite several opportunities given, the respondents have failed to file their response to the Special Leave Petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the 1st Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal. In view of the documentary evidence, both the Appellate Authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that the order dated 2-1-2008 was dispatched by registered post and the same was delivered to the petitioner-company on 3-1-2008. The delivery of the said order has not only been presumed but it has also been proved from the certificate of the Postal Department duly indicating that the said order was delivered to the assessee. It has been found as a fact that the address on which the said order was sent is admittedly correct and, therefore, the Appellate Authorities were fully justified that in view of Section 37C of the Act it is to be presumed that the said order was duly delivered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvelop containing the order was not having the correct address. 7. . 8. The Apex Court in V. Raja Kumari. v. P. Subbarama Naidu and Another, AIR 2005 SC 109, in paras 13 and 14 has held as under :- "13. Here the notice is returned as addressee being not found and not as refused. Will there be any significant difference between the two so far as the presumption of service is concerned In this connection a reference to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will he useful. The section reads thus : "27. Meaning of service by post. - Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of a the expressions give or....