2014 (12) TMI 907 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Delay in receipt of order - what should be the date of receipt of an order-in-original issued by the department to the appellants - Held that - As per the arguments made by the Revenue the said order-in-original was delivered to the appellants on 21.3.2013 according to the communication dated 05.3.2014 received by the department from the postal authorities. Appellants argued that the acknowledgement cards furnished do not show any signature on behalf of the appellants. During the course of hearing original acknowledgements were also seen by the bench but no signature of the appellants could be seen at the relevant space. Following decision of S.A. Engineering Works vs. CCE Vadodara 2013 (11) TMI 705 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - order passed by first appellate authority is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to him after setting aside the OIA dated 13.3.2014 for de-novo consideration of matter on merits after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Determination of the date of receipt of an order-in-original by the appellants
- Whether the order-in-original was delivered to the appellants in a timely manner
- Consideration of proof of service/delivery in determining the date of communication

Analysis:
1. Date of Receipt of Order-in-Original:
The central issue in this case revolved around establishing the date of receipt of an order-in-original by the appellants. The appellant argued that the order was received late, justifying the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant's representatives highlighted that the first appellate authority based its decision solely on the time bar issue rather than delving into the merits of the case.

2. Proof of Delivery and Communication Date:
The case involved a detailed examination of the proof of delivery and communication date concerning the order-in-original. The Revenue contended that the order was delivered to the appellants on a specific date based on reports from postal authorities. However, the appellants disputed this claim by pointing out the absence of their signatures on the acknowledgment cards, emphasizing the importance of proper proof of delivery.

3. Legal Precedents and Case Laws:
During the proceedings, both parties relied on various case laws to support their arguments. The appellant cited several cases, including S.A. Engineering Works vs. CCE and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. CCE Jaipur, to bolster their position regarding the date of receipt and the significance of proper acknowledgment. The judgments referenced highlighted the importance of proof of service and delivery in determining the validity of communication.

4. Decision and Remand:
After thorough consideration of the arguments and legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the order of the first appellate authority and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on its merits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a de-novo assessment of the case, focusing on the substantive issues rather than solely relying on procedural aspects like timeliness. The decision underscored the significance of ensuring proper service and acknowledgment in legal proceedings to uphold procedural fairness and justice.