2013 (3) TMI 300 - AT - Central Excise

Determination of date of service of order, against which an appeal is filed - Condonation of delay - - Preliminary objection that the appeal is barred by limitation - Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - we find that the appellant has sent a letter dated 3-5-2007 on 18-5-2007 to the department for communicating their advocate s address and their address in USA by Speed Post and a postal receipt of the same is on record. Impugned order dated 31-3-2009 has not been served on the addresses given by the appellant. The appellants cannot take the shelter of provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act as these provisions are only for the Department. In the eyes of law the litigants are on equal footing and there cannot be two parameters for rival sides - Appeal filed held as within time.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed beyond limitation period
- Applicability of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for communication

Analysis:
- The appellant filed an appeal against an order dated 31st March, 2009, on 16th April 2010, seeking a stay on the recovery of the demand. The Revenue contended that the appeal was time-barred as it was filed beyond the 90-day limitation period. The appellant argued that they received the order on 12th March 2010, within the 90-day period, as they had communicated their address change to the department in a letter dated 3-5-2007. The department claimed they did not receive the letter and that the appellant could not benefit from Section 37C of the Act, which they argued was only for the department's benefit.

- The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the appellant had indeed sent a letter in 2007 informing the department of their address change. The Tribunal noted that the department had not served the impugned order on the addresses provided in the appellant's letter. The Tribunal analyzed Section 37C of the Act, which governs the service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. It concluded that the provision applies to both the department and the appellant, emphasizing that both parties are on equal footing in legal proceedings. The Tribunal held that the appellant had complied with Section 37C by providing evidence of the communication of their address change to the department, and the department's failure to serve the order on the updated addresses rendered the service defective.

- Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's preliminary objection regarding the appeal being time-barred and ruled that the appeal was filed within the limitation period. The Registry was directed to list the stay application for further consideration on a specified date. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 15-3-2011.