2015 (7) TMI 894 - SC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Order served on unauthorised person who was a Kitchen boy employed on daily wages - Held that - Order had not been passed in the presence of the Appellant, so as to render its subsequent service a formality, and secondly, that the Order came to be passed after an inordinate period of eight months should not have been ignored. This fact should not have been lost sight of by the Authorities below as it has inevitably led to a miscarriage of justice. The Inspector of the Department should have meticulously followed and obeyed the mandate of the statute and tendered the Adjudication Order either on the party on whom it was intended or on its authorized agent and on one else. - miscarriage of justice has taken place, in that the Authorities/Courts below have failed to notice the specific language of Section 37C(a) of the Act which requires that an Order must be tendered on the concerned person or his authorized agent, in other words, on no other person, to ensure efficaciousness - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Appeal time-barred due to delayed service of Adjudication Order.
2. Proper service of legal documents as per Section 37C of the Act.
3. Failure of lower authorities to consider the essential issue of calculating limitation.
4. Misinterpretation of statutory provisions leading to miscarriage of justice.

Issue 1: Appeal time-barred due to delayed service of Adjudication Order

The Appellant's right of Appeal under the Central Excise Act was hindered as their Appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred. The Adjudication Order was passed on 30.3.2012, but the Appellant claimed to have only learned of it on 26.7.2012. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Appeal as time-barred since it was filed on 22.8.2012, beyond the prescribed sixty days. The subsequent dismissals by the Tribunal and the High Court were based on the same limitation issue without considering the merits of the Appeal.

Issue 2: Proper service of legal documents as per Section 37C of the Act

The Appellant argued that the Adjudication Order was served on an unauthorized employee, rendering the service invalid. Section 37C of the Act mandates that decisions or orders must be tendered to the concerned person or their authorized agent. The Appellant contended that serving the order on a 'kitchen boy' who was not an authorized agent was a violation of this provision. The failure to serve the order properly led to a lack of knowledge on the Appellant's part, affecting their ability to file a timely Appeal.

Issue 3: Failure of lower authorities to consider the essential issue of calculating limitation

The lower authorities, including the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, failed to address the fundamental issue of ascertaining the date from which the limitation period should be calculated. The Appellant's contention that the limitation period should start from the date they became aware of the Adjudication Order was not given due consideration by these authorities, leading to a dismissal based solely on the grounds of delay.

Issue 4: Misinterpretation of statutory provisions leading to miscarriage of justice

The Supreme Court highlighted the misinterpretation of Section 37C of the Act by the lower authorities, emphasizing that legal procedures must be followed meticulously to ensure justice. The Court referenced established legal principles and previous judgments to underscore the importance of adhering to statutory requirements. The failure to serve the Adjudication Order properly resulted in a miscarriage of justice, prompting the Supreme Court to allow the Appeals and set aside the impugned Orders. The Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the Appeal on its merits, considering the date of knowledge by the Appellant as the starting point for the limitation period.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeals, emphasizing the importance of proper service of legal documents and adherence to statutory provisions to prevent miscarriages of justice. The Court's decision highlighted the necessity of considering the date of knowledge for calculating limitation periods and directed a reevaluation of the Appeal on its merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).

← Previous Next →