2012 (12) TMI 96 - HC - Central Excise

Communication of orders to parties Held that - Communication of the order to authorised agent of a person is sufficient communication. Thus when the order was passed by the Tribunal on 22nd July 2010 in presence of counsel of the appellant the order shall also be deemed to be communicated on the same date and the submission of the appellant that unless the order is received by the appellant in person the order shall not be treated to be communicated to the appellant cannot be accepted - appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of rejecting the Misc. Application for not depositing 25% of the penalty within 30 days.
2. Justification of not accepting the deposit of 25% of the penalty amount in lieu of compliance with the Final Order.
3. Justification of insisting on depositing 25% of the penalty within 30 days from the date of the order.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act against an order passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant failed to deposit 25% of the penalty within 30 days from the date of the order. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for condonation of delay, citing non-compliance with the order. The appellant argued that the 30-day period should run from the date of communication of the order, not the date of the order itself. However, the court held that since the Tribunal's order explicitly directed payment within 30 days from the date of the order, the appellant missed the deadline by depositing the amount on 30th August, 2010, beyond the stipulated period.

2. The appellant contended that the 25% penalty deposit should be made within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, relying on Section 11 AC proviso of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Conversely, the respondent argued that the deposit deadline should be calculated from the date of the order itself, not the date of communication. The court noted that the Tribunal's order clearly specified the payment timeline from the date of the order. Additionally, since the appellant's counsel was present during the order's passing, the order was deemed communicated to the appellant on the same date. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the order needed to be physically received by the appellant for communication to be effective.

3. The court referred to Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which outlines the service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. The section deems the service of the decision effective if tendered to the person or their authorized agent. In this case, the appellant's counsel, as the authorized agent, was present during the order's passing, implying effective communication. Furthermore, the court cited Rules 13 and 35 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, emphasizing that communication to the authorized agent suffices. Consequently, the court found no substantial legal question for consideration and upheld the rejection of the appellant's miscellaneous application, ultimately dismissing the appeal.