JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. The validity of order passed by Central Government, under Section 36(2) of the Central Excise Act, as it then stood, is challenged herein. The petitioner is a manufacturer engaged in production of Khandsari Sugar. He filed a refund claim for a sum of about Rs. 9,000/- pertaining to period 1-3-1975. It was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise by his order dated 28-10-1977. The petitioner says that he did not receive a copy of the said order and that only much later he obtained a duplicate copy of the said order on 4-4-1978 and on that basis filed appeal on 17-4-1978. Accepting these facts and particularly in the light of the circumstance that the case records did not contain the acknowledgement of the party in token of having received the adjudication order, the Appellate Collector treated the appeal in time, examined it on merits and allowed the refund claim by his order dated 19-9-1978. This order was revised by the Central Government under the impugned order. the central Government's order merely says that the certificate issued by the concerned Post Office, does establish service of the adjudication order upon the petitioner and, therefore, his case that he did not know of the order is unacceptable. On that basis the Central Government was of the opinion that the appeal before the appellate Collector was barred by time. It accordingly set aside the order of Appellate Collectro and restored the order of the Assistant Collector.
2. Though a counter is filed by the respondents, it is not explained as to how Nisar Ahmad, who is said to have received the said communication, is connected with the petitioner or his industry. The petitioner's name is Afzal Ahmad. It is proprietary concern. In the writ petition it is repeatedly averred that Nisar Ahmad is no way connected with the petitioner-industry. No material is also placed before us to indicate the connection between Nisar ahmad and the petitioner or his industry. In the circumstances, we hold that the Central Government was not justified in holding that the adjudcation order was served upon the petitioner, more particularl when the postal acknowledgement itself was not available in the file. Even the certificate of the Post Master, referred to in the counter-affidavit, is not placed before us.
3. For the above reasons, the order of the Central Government must be held to be based on no relevant evidence and must be quashed. It is accordingly quashed and the order of the Appellate Collector dated 19-8-1978 is restored. No costs.