2022 (5) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant prepares a 'chemical solution' in their pigment room, known in the trade parlance as 'season', which is manufactured by mixing prescribed proportion of items like Binders, pigment, dye, oil, fat, wax and preservatives. The 'season' so manufactured is stored in drums, thereafter the same is taken to the manufacturing section and sprayed through machine on the leather to give the leather the desire colour as well as to protect and enhance this protection, so as last for a long time. As the appellant was not paying duty on this intermediate product, which according to the appellant was having a short shelf life of about a weak and was not marketable. However, it appeared to Revenue that the same is classifiable under Chapter Headi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 19th November, 2018 stating that the said letter had been served on some employee of the appellant company on 24th October, 2017, and hence as the time for filing the appeal as permissible has expired, they should deposit adjudicated dues, otherwise coercive measures shall be taken for recovery. The appellant again by their letter dated 26th November addressed to the Range Superintendent mentioned that the said order-in-original had not served upon them till date. A request has been made for service of the copy of the same. In spite of several persuasions with the range superintendent officer, finally order-in- original was served upon them by hand on 13th March, 2019. Thereafter the appellant filed their appeal before the Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Mr. Ankur Upadhyay has taken me to the aforementioned correspondence. He points out from the copy of the dispatch register which was reproduced in the body of order-in-appeal, that the file no. mentioned is erroneous as the same appears to be V(10)15- 01/ADJ-11/16-17, whereas in the order-in-original the file number mentioned is V(41) 15-01/Adj-11/16-17. Thus what appeared to be dispatched, is not the order-in-original. Secondly, he points out that the signature is illegible and the appellant company does not have any such officer or staff having such signature. It is the onus of the Department to conclusively give the details of service, which as per section 37C(1a) provides that any decision or order passed under the act shall be served....