COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUCKNOW Vs. SHUBH METALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dipak Seth, learned Counsel for appellant. None has appeared on behalf of respondent. We have read Office Report dated 1-8-2017, which shows that notice served by Courier has not been received un-served back, hence service is deemed sufficient under the Rules. We, therefore, proceed to decide it after hearing Counsel for appellant.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) It is submitted that a common notice was issued to various parties including respondent-Assessee (hereinafter referred to as "Assessee") in same language on 29-4-2005.