Rajasthan Explosives and Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Rajasthan Explosives and vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 15, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38114

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/38114
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Feb 15, 2005
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajasthan Explosives and

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(183)ELT297TriDel

Excerpt

.....and rejected the appeal.in the present appeal, it is being submitted that since only one of the panchas had been cross-examined and that person had only stated that he saw mr. solanki (excise inspector) pasting some papers on the appellant's factory (without confirming that it was the order in question) panchanama proceeding cannot be accepted as authentic.learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of this tribunal in the case of elektro kool industries v. cce, hyderabad-iii - 2004 (172) e.l.t. 255 (t) = 2004 (63) rlt 296.2. as against the above contention of the appellant, the learned sdr has pointed out that service through affixing a copy of the order on the factory premises is sufficient [2004 (166) e.l.t. 417 (tri-del.) - capital ferro alloys p. ltd. v. cce, jaipur-i] service. he also argued that the substance of the replies in the cross-examination, is to the effect that the order has actually been served. "(x) that during the course of cross examination said shri sanjay khan in reply to a specific question what did you see on 28.1.99 at the factory premises of the appellant's stated as under :- 'that he saw mr. solanki along with one constable and he was told that they are pasting a paper and you put your signatures. i refused to sign. the constable told me that it was a govt. work and there was nothing wrong in, it and thereafter, i appended my signatures on a paper'. further to another specific question 'what was the paper which was pasted', shri sanjay khan replied as under :- 'it was white paper something was written thereon and he had not read that paper. 'he further added that there were three - four persons." 4. it is well settled that affixing the order on the factory premises is sufficient service. the remand order was limited to going into the fact of service through affixing on the factory as stated in the panchanama. the substance of the replies of the pancha is to the effect that he was present when the central excise officer.....

Full Judgment

1. Perused the records and heard both sides. The matter is before the Tribunal for second time. The facts are like this : The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) [Order-in-Appeal No. 100 (KDT) CE/JPR-I (53) dated 8-3-200] as barred by limitation. The appellant submitted before the Tribunal that no copy of the Order impugned before the Commissioner had been served on it. The Revenue's contention was that the Order had been served by registered post and thereafter by affixing a copy of the order on the appellant's premises on 28th January 1999. This contention was raised by relying on the panchanama covering the affixing of the Order. Since the correctness of the Panchanama was questioned before the Tribunal, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner to go into that issue. During the remand, proceeding, the Commissioner allowed the cross-examination of one of the witnesses to the panchanama. That person confirmed witnessing the affixing of some papers by the Central Excise Officer. The Commissioner, thereupon held that the order had actually been affixed and rejected the appeal.

In the present appeal, it is being submitted that since only one of the panchas had been cross-examined and that person had only stated that he saw Mr. Solanki (Excise Inspector) pasting some papers on the appellant's factory (without confirming that it was the Order in question) panchanama proceeding cannot be accepted as authentic.

Learned Counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Elektro Kool Industries v. CCE, Hyderabad-III - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 255 (T) = 2004 (63) RLT 296.

2. As against the above contention of the appellant, the learned SDR has pointed out that service through affixing a copy of the Order on the factory premises is sufficient [2004 (166) E.L.T. 417 (Tri-Del.) - Capital Ferro Alloys P. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I] service. He also argued that the substance of the replies in the cross-examination, is to the effect that the Order has actually been served.

"(X) That during the course of cross examination said Shri Sanjay Khan in reply to a specific question what did you see on 28.1.99 at the factory premises of the appellant's stated as under :- 'that he saw Mr. Solanki along with one Constable and he was told that they are pasting a paper and you put your signatures. I refused to sign. The constable told me that it was a Govt. work and there was nothing wrong in, it and thereafter, I appended my signatures on a paper'.

Further to another specific question 'what was the paper which was pasted', Shri Sanjay Khan replied as under :- 'It was white paper something was written thereon and he had not read that paper. 'He further added that there were three - four persons." 4. It is well settled that affixing the Order on the factory premises is sufficient service. The remand order was limited to going into the fact of service through affixing on the factory as stated in the panchanama. The substance of the replies of the pancha is to the effect that he was present when the Central Excise officer affixed the order.

That the pancha had not read the order or that he did not state that it was the Order-in-Original dated 23-12-1998 which was affixed, do not take away from the fact that he was a witness to the affixing of the paper. Since no other paper was affixed on the appellant's factory on 28-1-1999, the testimony has to be taken as confirming the panchanama.

5. In the above circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order rejecting the appeal as being beyond limitation. The appeal fails and is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Rajasthan Explosives and vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge N T C.N.B.