2011 (11) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals filed by the appellants rejected on the ground of period of limitation - Order-in-Original sent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) Assessee declined to receive the order in time - Held that - In case of Sewa castings Pvt Ltd, in view of acknowledgment received produced, it is held that once the order or decision is sent by RPAD to the correct address to the recipient, the obligation under statute is fulfilled. As regards other two appellants viz. Shri Ravindra Singh Arora and Shri Amit Wadhwa, acknowledgement shows the recipient as M/s Sewa Castings Pvt.Ltd. If the order has not been received by authorized person, as claimed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appealof the appellants will be within time. Therefore, for this purpose, the matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals).

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing appeals based on the delivery of Order-in-Original.
2. Legal interpretation of service under Section 37(C) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the timeliness of filing appeals by the appellants, which were rejected due to not meeting the prescribed time limit. The appellant's counsel argued that despite the Department providing an acknowledgement of delivering the Order-in-Original by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD), the signature of the recipient did not match with any of their employees. The counsel contended that if the order had been received, the appeal would have been promptly filed. Citing legal precedents, the counsel emphasized that improper delivery by postal authorities does not constitute valid service.

2. The contrasting argument presented by the Authorized Representative for the Department relied on precedents indicating that once an order is sent via RPAD to the correct address, it is deemed delivered to the assessee as per statutory provisions. The Representative referenced specific tribunal decisions to support the notion that the obligation of the authority ends once the order is dispatched correctly. The contention was that failure to receive the order does not provide the addressee with a remedy under the statute.

3. The presiding member of the Tribunal considered both arguments and reviewed Section 37(C) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which outlines the service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. The Tribunal noted that while the Department's argument was supported by various decisions emphasizing RPAD delivery as sufficient, the appellant's reliance on specific cases highlighted the importance of proper receipt by an authorized person. The Tribunal differentiated cases where orders were refused by unauthorized individuals from those where orders were received by unauthorized persons.

4. The Tribunal concluded that for one of the appellants, the appeal was rejected as the Department provided evidence of delivery to the correct address. However, for the other two appellants, the evidence of delivery was not conclusive, leading to a remand back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further verification. The decision highlighted the necessity of examining whether the delivery complied with the provisions of Section 37(C) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for those appellants.

5. In summary, the Tribunal rejected one appeal while remanding two others for further verification of delivery evidence, emphasizing the importance of proper service under the relevant legal provisions. The judgment underscores the significance of ensuring that orders are received by authorized persons within the stipulated time frame for appeals to be considered timely.