2014 (6) TMI 864 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit - Service of order - Whether the service of the adjudication order through Speed Post is proper or not - Held that - As held by the Hon ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Best Dyeing (2007 (10) TMI 422 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT), the service through Speed Post is not a proper service. The Hon ble High Court has also observed that in the Finance Act, 2013, an amendment took place in Section 37C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, wherein the service through Speed Post is incorporated as not a valid service . Therefore, I hold that the service through Speed Post is not a proper service during the impugned period. As the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as soon as he received the adjudication order, therefore, the appeal filed before him is within the prescribed time - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Proper service of adjudication order through "Speed Post" as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Appeal dismissal by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as time-bar

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order dismissing their appeal as time-bar by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the order-in-original was served through "Speed Post" instead of the required "Registered Post" as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Citing a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the appellant contended that service through "Speed Post" is not a proper service. The appellant received the order in August 2013 and promptly filed an appeal, challenging the dismissal as time-bar.

The learned A.R. supported the impugned order, stating that the order was indeed served on the appellant via "Speed Post," which was received by the appellant. The A.R. argued that since the appellant received the order, the appeal dismissal was justified. The key contention revolved around whether service through "Speed Post" during the impugned period was considered proper.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Best Dyeing, which deemed service through "Speed Post" as improper. The Tribunal noted that an amendment in Section 37C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, post the impugned period, explicitly stated that service through "Speed Post" was not valid. Consequently, the Tribunal held that service through "Speed Post" during the impugned period was improper. As the appellant filed the appeal promptly upon receiving the order, the Tribunal found the appeal within the prescribed time. Since the impugned order was not based on merit, the matter was remanded back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.