TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missed. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/ applicant is that though they had raised the ground that the computation of period of limitation by Registry of this Hon'ble Tribunal was erroneous and their appeal was filed in time. However, this Tribunal erred in observing that there is a delay in filing the appeal of about six years, and accordingly for want of powers to condone, it dismissed the appeal. The ld. Counsel has taken us to the relevant dates and facts which are borne on the records as follows: Dates Events 17.12.2003 Appellant appeared before the officers of the DRI in compliance to the summons, in respect of ongoing investigation against companies owned and controlled by Sh. Lokesh Chander C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etter was also given to the ld. Adjudicating Authority with a request to provide the copy of the SCN alongwith RUD's. .04.2013 The office of the ld. Commissioner, served the copy of the SCN to the appellant in the second week of April, 2013, however, relied upon documents were not served to the appellant. Though the appellant for the first time received the copy of the SCN, which was incomplete as the documents referred in the SCN were not provided to the appellant. 21.05.2013 Appellant filed a criminal complaint at Police Station, Vivek Vihar, Shahdara, Delhi against his brother-in-law Sh. Lokesh Chander Chopra and his brother Sh. Sunil Kumar, for registration of FIR, for commission of offence of cheating, forgery and fraud by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raffic jam. By then the appeal was called and it was informed that the matter has been dismissed for default. 10.02.2016 That during the arguments on the application for restoration of the appeal & the COD, the Hon'ble Bench was kind enough to pass the order and give another chance to the appellant to file another COD application. Further, the department was asked to get the detailed chart and proof of delivery. The matter was adjourned to 13.06.2016 09.06.2016 Meanwhile, in compliance of the order dated 10.02.2016, the appellant filed another COD application vide C/COD/50808/2016. 13.06.2016 The Hon'ble Bench noticed that Hon'ble Member Technical Sh. R.K. Singh had issued the SCN in the capacity of ADJ(DRI). Thus, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....27.02.2018 The matter was adjourned on the request of the appellant for change of counsel. 13.03.2018 The undersigned counsel was appointed by the appellant and the matter was adjourned on the request of the present counsel. 15.03.2018 That the undersigned counsel could not go-through the contents of the file, the same was again adjourned to 19.03.2018. 20.04.2018 The Hon'ble Bench dismissed the COD application as well as the appeal of the appellant. 3. The learned Counsel further states that from the very beginning the appellants/ applicants stand was that the impugned Order-in-original was never served on the appellant. It was only when notice of recovery dated 01.02.2013 issued by Jila Adhikari, Ghaziabad, UP, was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the acknowledgment due, which should have been produced by the department. Therefore, the onus lies on the department by giving sufficient evidence that the appellant has received the said order-in-original within time. The appellant in support of the same relies on the following judgements: i. Regent Overseas Pvt Ltd. Vs. UOI 2017 (6) GSTL 15 (Guj) ii. Margra Industries Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi 2006 (202) ELT 244 iii. Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI 2012 (26) STR 299 (Bom) iv. Sunrise Industries Corp. vs. CCE 2013 (29) STR 447 v. ADF Foods Ltd. vs. CCE 2015 (325) ELT 922 vi. S.A. Engineering Works vs. CCE, Vadodara-II 2013 (295) ELT 236 vii. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I 2014 (33) STR 332 (Tri. Del) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso in ignoring the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court and Larger Bench of this Tribunal which had a binding effect on the Division Bench. Further, in the final order, there is no discussion, distinguishing the Larger Bench ruling in Margra Industries Ltd. (supra). 5. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel prays for allowing the rectification application, modifying the final order with consequential benefits/relief. 6. The learned AR for Revenue supported the final order and further states that the appellant is seeking a review of the final order, which is not permissible. 7. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records, we find that there is error committed in the final order of this Tribunal. Firstly, the ground taken by....