2018 (11) TMI 1298 - HC - Service Tax

Service of notice - whether speed post is proper service or not - section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - There is nothing on record to show that order sent by speed post was received by the assessee himself. No case for interference - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding service by speed post.
2. Effect of the 2013 amendment on the retrospective nature of service by speed post.
3. Application of precedents from Orisa High Court and Bombay High Court.
4. Tribunal's decision based on non-receipt of order by the assessee.
5. Remittance of the matter to the Commissioner after a lapse of three years.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in ruling that service by speed post was improper, citing a misinterpretation of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the 2013 amendment, allowing service by speed post, is clarificatory and retroactive in nature, emphasizing the validity of such service.

2. The appellant relied on a judgment from the Orisa High Court, reinforcing the importance of service by speed post. Conversely, the respondent referenced a Division Bench judgment from the Bombay High Court, specifically the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, to support their position on the issue at hand.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the non-receipt of the original order by the assessee, leading to the assumption that it might have been received by another party. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on the merits of the case, despite more than three years having passed since the initial order.

4. Considering the factual findings and the absence of evidence indicating the receipt of the order by the assessee, the Court found no grounds for interference, ultimately dismissing the appeal without imposing any costs. The judgment underscores the significance of proper service and the implications of non-receipt on legal proceedings, highlighting the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in legal matters.