2010 (2) TMI 933 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the service of adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on daughter-in-law of the Managing Partner of the appellant firm is a valid service in accordance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act 1944 Held that - order was served upon the daughter-in-law of the Managing Partner even on 7-10-2004. According to the appellant the order copy was received only on 6-12-2007 there is no explanation to show as to when the appellant firm got the information as to the serving of the order and as to what happened in the interregnum period of three years. No plausible explanation is forthcoming from the appellant firm as to the inordinate delay in filing the appeal Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal declining to condone the delay appeal is dismissed miscellaneous petition is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of service of adjudication order on daughter-in-law of the Managing Partner of the appellant firm under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the issue of whether the service of an adjudication order on the daughter-in-law of the Managing Partner of the appellant firm was valid under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had passed an order confirming a demand under Rule 96(ZP) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 r/w Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944, which was received by the daughter-in-law on 7-10-2004. The appellant firm claimed to have received the order only on 6-12-2007, leading to a delay in filing the appeal. The key contention raised was whether service on the daughter-in-law constituted valid notice under Section 37C.

The appellant raised substantial questions of law challenging the validity of service on the daughter-in-law, emphasizing the distinction made in Section 37C between "service" and "deemed service." The appellant argued that service on the daughter-in-law did not comply with the requirements of Section 37C(1)(a) which mentions service to the person intended or their authorized agent. However, the court noted that the order was served at the correct address of the Managing Partner, and thus, constituted valid service under Section 37C.

The appellant relied on precedents from other High Courts to support their argument, citing cases where service on family members or unauthorized individuals was deemed invalid. However, the court distinguished those cases from the present situation, emphasizing the specific circumstances of each case. The court highlighted that the factual matrix of the present case differed from the cases cited by the appellant, thereby upholding the validity of service on the daughter-in-law.

Ultimately, the court found no substantial question of law warranting interference in the Tribunal's order. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were not awarded. The court concluded that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to provide a plausible explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed accordingly.