2017 (5) TMI 1075

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For Applicant(s): Shri A Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s): Shri L Patra, Authorised Representative Per: Dr D.M. Misra These two applications are filed seeking Condonation of delay of 331 days in filing the appeal before this Forum. 2. The Ld. Advocate Shri Tripathi for the applicant submits that the impugned order dtd. 28.8.2014 was received on 05.9.2014 and the appeals were requi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is mentioned that Shri Fultariya Ketan Chunilal, was the watchman who received the order and left the employment towards the end of Sept. 2015. In support of his argument, that delivery/receipt of the Order by watchman is not a proper communication/service of the Order; the Ld. Advocate referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft Pvt Ltd Vs CCE&ST - 2015(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....received by the watchman, hence cannot be considered as communication, is devoid of merit. Distinguishing the judgment in the case of Saral Wire Craft Pvt Ltd's case, the Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that in that case the order was served on Kitchen Boy and in Vindyachal Synthetic's case, the facts are different, in as much as the order was served on the Watchman, when factory was under lockou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rdance with the Provision of Sec 37C of CEA 1944. The judgment cited by the Ld. Advocate viz., Saral Wire Craft Pvt Ltd and Vindhyachal Synthetics Pvt Ltd case are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as, in the first case there was no compliance of Sec. 37C of CEA, 1944, and in the second case the factory was under lockout. The delay can be condoned when su....