9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (6) TMI 396 - AT - Central ExciseService of order - Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Time Limitation - in existence of proof of sending of order of adjudication by Speed Post by Revenue whether such order is said to have been served on the person for whom that was meant? - Held that - acknowledgement produced by Revenue proves that order of adjudication was sent by Speed Post and the order was deemed to have been served under sub-section (2) of Section 37C on the date on which the order-in-original was delivered by Speed Post. The deeming provision of law supported by evidence of dispatch does not help the Appellant/Applicant to succeed - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Validity of service of the adjudication order by Speed Post. 3. Applicability of judicial precedents on the service of notice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The Appellant filed an appeal on 16-3-05 against an order dated 25-1-05 by the Commissioner (Appeals-IV) of Central Excise, Kolkata, which dismissed the appeal as time-barred without condoning the delay. The Appellant argued that they received the order on 20-12-04 and filed the appeal on 3-1-05, within the permissible period of 60 days. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the order was dispatched on 18-3-04 and not returned as undelivered, thus the appeal filed after nine months could not be condoned as per statutory limits. 2. Validity of Service of the Adjudication Order by Speed Post: The Appellant contended that they did not receive the order dispatched on 18-3-04 and sought confirmation from the Postal Authority, which could not entertain the complaint due to being time-barred. The Department argued that under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, service by registered post is deemed effective on the date of dispatch. The Tribunal examined whether proof of dispatch by Speed Post is sufficient to consider the order served. 3. Applicability of Judicial Precedents on the Service of Notice: The Tribunal referred to the judicial precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Rajesh Kumar Jain v. Union of India, which held that dispatching a notice by registered post fulfills the requirement of service under law. The Tribunal also considered other relevant judgments, including those by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Margra Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The Tribunal concluded that the dispatch of the order by Speed Post, as evidenced by receipts, constituted valid service under Section 37C(2) of the Central Excise Act. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the Order No. A-442/Kol/2007 dated 28-3-07, holding that the Appellant's appeal was rightly dismissed as time-barred. The Tribunal emphasized that the dispatch of the adjudication order by Speed Post was deemed valid service under the law, and the Appellant's arguments did not hold against the established judicial precedents. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 11-6-2008.
|
