9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 531 - AT - Central ExciseRestoration of the Appeal - Non delivery of order - Held that - letters/communications had been issued from time to time by the Registry on the address mentioned in the EA-3 Appeal Form and the same were not returned, as undelivered, by the postal authorities. From the record of the Dispatch Register produced by the Registry, it is crystal clear that the notices/orders were communicated in accordance with the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - not on a single occasion, communication of notices of hearing/order sent to the Applicant, had ever been returned as unserved. On the contrary, even seven Appeals filed by the Applicant subsequently before this Tribunal the same address has been shown as the address for communication - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Restoration of Appeal dismissed earlier due to alleged non-receipt of communication. 2. Verification of communication of notices/orders to the Applicant. 3. Application filed after a significant period from the date of dismissal of the Appeal. 4. Applicability of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding service of decisions/orders. 5. Comparison with relevant case law regarding communication of notices/orders. Analysis: 1. The Applicant filed an application seeking restoration of the Appeal dismissed earlier due to alleged non-receipt of communication. The Applicant claimed not to have received any communication regarding the Appeal and Stay Application, leading to the dismissal. The Applicant requested recall of the orders passed by the Tribunal. 2. The Registry verified the communication of notices/orders to the Applicant and reported that all communications were sent to the address mentioned in the Appeal Form. The Registry confirmed that the notices/orders were dispatched in accordance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and none were returned undelivered. The Applicant had filed multiple appeals mentioning the same address, indicating consistent communication. 3. The Application was filed after three years from the dismissal of the Appeal, raising concerns about its maintainability as it aimed to rectify the Final Order dated 12.04.2010. The Revenue argued against the maintainability of the Application citing the delay in filing and the deemed communication of orders as per Section 37C. 4. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, outlines the procedure for service of decisions/orders. The Tribunal found that the notices/orders were communicated following the prescribed procedure and were not returned undelivered. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Applicant did not receive the communication, emphasizing the delivery of subsequent communications to the same address. 5. The ld. Consultant for the Applicant referred to the judgment in Margra Industries Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi, to support the claim that the Registry should establish the communication of notices. However, the Tribunal found that the notices/orders were duly communicated to the Applicant based on the evidence provided by the Registry. A comparison with relevant case law highlighted the difference in communication scenarios, supporting the Tribunal's decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application seeking restoration of the Appeal, as it found no merit in the Applicant's contention of non-receipt of communication. The Tribunal emphasized the consistent communication to the Applicant's address and the adherence to Section 37C procedures for service of decisions/orders. The decision was based on the evidence presented and the lack of returned communications, affirming the communication of notices/orders to the Applicant.
|
