2007 (11) TMI 62 - HC - Central Excise

Petitioners, Ex-directors did not authorize any body to receive copy of adjudication order - Copy of order received by authorized signatory who was actually not authorized to receive the same Service of order not valid.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, service of adjudication order, authority to receive documents, jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioners, ex-directors of a company engaged in manufacturing, received show-cause notices for Central Excise duty recovery and penalties. The Commissioner adjudicated the case, imposing penalties and confirming the duty demand. Due to an arbitration award, the petitioners were unaware of the adjudication order until May 2002, when they requested a certified copy. They filed appeals within the limitation period, but faced objections regarding delay, claiming they had no involvement in the company's affairs post-July 2001. The Tribunal rejected their delay condonation applications, stating the order was served at the factory's address. However, the High Court found that the service on the factory's authorized signatory did not constitute service on the petitioners, as they had not authorized anyone to receive the order on their behalf. The Court held that the department should have served the order on the petitioners directly. Consequently, the Tribunal's orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored for a decision on merits.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeals on their merits in accordance with the law. The parties were to bear their own costs in the case.