TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., etc. The assesseee has also availed benefit of SSI exemption. It appeared to Revenue that the appellant has wrongly availed and utilised cenvat credit under the erstwhile Central Credit Rules, 2002, and has also wilfully mis-stated the closing stock of finished goods as on 31.03.2003 and 31.03.2004 in the RG-I Stock Register, with an intent to wrongly utilise the Cenvat credit and thus, have evaded excise duty of Rs. 6,00,684/-. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 5.10.2005 was issued for demand relating to the period 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. 3. Prior to issue of show cause notice, there was an incident of fire in the factory premises on 1.4.2005. The incident of fire resulted in destruction (heavy loss) and then closure of the factor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tachment order was served by way of affixture at the factory premises of the appellant. The appellant challenged the said attachment order-in-writ petition before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, wherein vide interim order dated 15.02.2008, the Hon'ble High Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs and also granted interim stay of the attachment. Thereafter, the recovery notice for the dues arising out of the adjudication order in this case, dated 18.09.2008 was served by hand on the Director, Shri Rajendra Dangayach. However, the order-in-original was not served till date. The factory of the appellant could not be re-started after huge loss suffered in the year 2005, and finally was sold to the third party in the month of April,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant further filed a follow-up letter on 14.06.2018, to which a reply was given by the Department dated 25.06.2018 claiming that they had already provided certified copy. The appellant again requested for the certified copy by letter dated 5.7.2018 mentioning that they can not file appeal without annexing the certified copy. Thereafter, certified copy was finally issued on 17.07.2018. The appellant has filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 15.10.2018, within a period of 90 days. 7. It appeared to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Taking notice that the date of communication of the impugned order is mentioned as 11.07.2018, whereas the certified copy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act which requires service of the orders to be made either in person or by tendering the decisions/orders by sending it by registered/speed post with acknowledgement due to the person, to whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any. Further, Clause (b) & (c) of sub-section (1) provides, "for the substituted service, if the order etc. cannot be served in the aforementioned manner. Thus, in absence of service of the impugned order by hand", nor there is any despatch by speed post, there is no proper service of the said order. It is only on 14.05.2018 that the copy of order-in-original was handed over first time to the Director, Shri Rajendra Dangiyach. Thereafter, in spite of request, certified copy was issued on 11.07.2018 by....