TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA The present appeal is against Order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. 725 dated 06.07.2018. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to accept the grounds as submitted before him specifically that the copy of order of Original Adjudicating Authority was received by the appellant only on 10th August, 2015. It is due to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order. The order is accordingly prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be decided on merits. 3. While rebutting these arguments, ld. D.R. has relied upon Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) to impress upon that Commissioner (Appeals) has no discretion to condone the delay beyond a period of 90 days. The present appeal was filed before him bey....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved the impugned show cause notice. There is no proof of delivery/service by the Department. It is apparent from the Order-in-Original that the assessee did not file reply to the show cause notice nor attended the personal hearing as were fixed by the Assistant Commissioner. Ex-parte Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2014 support the appellant contention that too in absence of any proof of service of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner (Appeals) that the order in Original was never communicated to him and that it was never served upon him in the way as is required under Section 37 C of the Central Excise Act. I opine that it was mandatory for Commissioner (Appeals) to look into the said aspect. The copy of Order-in-Original, apparently and admittedly, was received by the appellant only on 10th August, 2015. That too, it ....