2014 (7) TMI 1230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 2-4-2007, which were dismissed vide impugned order dated 24-12-2007. The claim of the appellants are that due to closure of the factory, the adjudication orders were not received by them and the fact regarding issue of such order came to their knowledge through the letter dated 2-2-2007 from the Superintendent, insisting for payment of the arrear of the Revenue arising out of the adjudication orders. However, ignoring the submissions of the appellants regarding non-receipt of the adjudication orders, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had solely relied on the mahazar drawn on 30-8-2006 and concluded the said date as the date of receipt of the impugned order by the appellant. To substanti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er could not be served on the appellant, enabling them to file the appeal within the stipulated time frame. However, upon communication of the certified copy of the order by the Central Excise Department on 2-2-2007, the appeals were filed in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) on 2-4-2007, which is within the prescribed time limit in terms of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the mahazar dated 30-8-2006 drawn by the Superintendent, cannot be relied upon to construe that filing of appeal is barred by limitation of time. The relevant portion in the Mahazar, are extracted below : "......... The said Superintendent took us to the above cited premises situated at No. 21, D-2,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e above facts and confirmed that the present address of the appellant is not known. Hence, the Mahazar drawn in presence of the witnesses clearly depicts that the adjudication order has not been communicated to the appellant enabling it to file the appeal. I also find that the provisions of Section 37C of the Act will have no application to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that as per the requirement of the said section, the order has to be served by affixing a copy thereof on the compound wall of the factory or other place of business or the residence or in the residence of the person for whom such decision is intended. Since, the Mahazar has been drawn at a place which is neither the factory nor the residence of the appel....