2018 (6) TMI 879

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant : Ms. Rinki Arora , Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Singh, DR ORDER Per : V. Padmanabhan The present Appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No. 7/2014 dated 24.02.2014. The appellant is engaged in providing services in relation to erection, commissioning and installation and the dispute pertains to the period 2009-2010 for which the Department has demanded the service ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnection, she relied on the following case laws: (a) Bharat Sanchar Nigam vs. Commissioner 2014 (33) STR 332 (Tri.-Del.) (b) S.A. Engineering Works vs. Commissioner 2013 (295) E.L.T. 236 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (c) Sunrise Industrial Corporation vs. Commissioner 2013 (29) S.T.R. 447 (Tri.-Del.) (d) Margra Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2006 (202) E.L.T. 244 (Tri.-LB) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner (Appeals) has taken the view that the Order has been properly served complying with the provisions of Section 37C. These observations in para 7 are reproduced below: "7. Sub-section (2) of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 speaks that every decision or order passed or summon issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been served on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d within seven days from the date of dispatch. Appellant's bald plea that Order-in-Original was never received by them is not acceptable. Depositions made in the affidavit are also found to be unreal or misleading. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana vs. Mohan Bottling Co. Ltd. (supra) further held that "It is for the assessee to rebut the presumption of ....