2018 (8) TMI 159 - AT - Central Excise

Service of Order - Remission of duty - denial on the ground that appeals having been filed beyond the time limit prescribed under law - Held that - As the impugned order was sent by the Deputy Commissioner to their earlier address in spite of change of address having been brought to the notice of the Revenue and in the absence of the disclosure in the report of the Deputy Commissioner about the address at which the impugned order was affixed, the impugned orders, dismissing the appeals on the point of time bar are required to be set aside and matter needs to be remanded for verification of the address at which the impugned orders were affixed by the Revenue - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed beyond the prescribed time limit.
2. Communication of impugned order and adherence to Section 37C.
3. Change of address notification and its impact on communication.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves appeals with identical facts where the appellant's factory faced a fire incident, leading to the destruction of goods and subsequent requests for remission of duty. Various show cause notices were issued, resulting in different orders by the Original Adjudicating Authority. Appeals against these orders were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being filed beyond the time limit prescribed by law.

2. Focusing on a specific appeal, it was noted that the Order-in-Original was issued in 2003, while the appeal was filed in 2011. The appellant claimed the order was communicated to them in October 2011, and the appeal was filed within a month. The Appellate Authority obtained a report confirming the order was served by affixing it at the factory premises in accordance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, leading to the conclusion that the appeal filed after nine years was time-barred.

3. The appellant had notified the Revenue of a change in their factory address post a fire incident in 1995. Despite this, the Deputy Commissioner sent the impugned order to the old address. The judgment highlighted the need to verify the address where the order was affixed and whether sequential measures under Section 37C were followed before affixing the order. The decision emphasized the importance of determining the actual date of communication for deciding the limitation period, directing the Appellate Authority to conduct necessary verifications and make decisions accordingly.

4. Given the similarity in facts across all appeals, the judgment set aside the impugned orders in all cases and remanded them to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision based on the observations and directions provided in the judgment. The decision aimed to ensure proper verification of communication processes and adherence to legal timelines in each case, emphasizing the significance of addressing procedural requirements in a timely and accurate manner.