2008 (2) TMI 215 - AT - Central Excise

Service of hearing notice - Revenue contended that factory of appellant does not exist so hearing notice could not be served in person and it has been pasted on the factory gate - held that notices in Revenue appeals are required to be served on the persons tribunal observed that it is surprising as to how the hearing notice could have been pasted on the factory when it is not in existence - appeal by revenue cannot be heard and hence, it is dismissed

Summary

Issues: Proper service of hearing notice in a Revenue appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question involved the issue of proper service of a hearing notice in a Revenue appeal. The Bench had directed the Commissioner to serve the notice of hearing on the Respondents. However, the Additional Commissioner informed that the notice could not be served in person and was instead pasted on the factory gate and the old residence of the Managing Director of the company.

2. The learned SDR argued that pasting the notice on the factory gate should be considered proper service and the appeal could proceed. However, the Tribunal did not agree with this submission. Citing a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Electrolytic Foils Ltd., it was emphasized that notices in Revenue appeals are required to be served on the persons directly.

3. The Additional Commissioner's admission that the land and factory had been sold by the company, rendering them non-existent, raised doubts about how the hearing notice could have been pasted on a non-existent factory. The Tribunal highlighted that the law has not been amended to allow for service through alternative means in such cases. Therefore, based on the Apex Court judgment, the appeal was dismissed as proper service of the notice was not achieved.

This detailed analysis showcases the importance of proper service of hearing notices in Revenue appeals and the strict adherence to legal requirements as established by precedent judgments.