2019 (9) TMI 325 - HC - Central Excise

Filing of appeal without the copy of the order in original - Appellant claimed that order was not served upon him - request for release of bank account from attachment - Section 37C of the Central Excise Act - the respondent submits that the petitioner is served with the order in original by speed post, however at present the acknowledgment is not traceable - HELD THAT - We cannot set aside any order without the copy of the said order before us. In fact the Registry should not have registered the petition without the copy of the order sought to be challenged in the writ petition. Upon receipt of the certified copy the petitioner may file an appeal against the said order if so advised before the appropriate forum. The appropriate forum shall naturally consider about the claim of the petitioner that the order in original was not served upon the petitioner and thereafter shall pass the necessary orders.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service of order in original not received by petitioner
2. Lack of copy of order challenged in writ petition
3. Availability of remedy of appeal for petitioner
4. Registry's role in registering petition without copy of order
5. Direction to provide certified copy of order to petitioner
6. Possibility of filing an appeal by petitioner
7. Request for releasing sealed bank account
8. Disposal of writ petition without considering merits

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged an order in original passed in 2012, asserting that they never received a copy of the order despite it being mandatory under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act before the 2013 amendment. The respondent admitted to not having proof of service to the petitioner. The petitioner only became aware of the order after their bank accounts were attached, prompting payment of the service tax amount.

2. The respondent claimed to have served the order by speed post, though the acknowledgment was missing. The court emphasized the need for the copy of the order to be presented before any decision could be made, criticizing the Registry for accepting the petition without the essential document.

3. The respondent highlighted the petitioner's right to appeal, suggesting that the petitioner should pursue this avenue for further recourse.

4. The court refrained from passing any orders without a thorough examination of the impugned order's details and implications, emphasizing the importance of due process.

5. The court directed the respondents to provide a certified copy of the order to the petitioner within 15 days, acknowledging the petitioner's prior request for the same.

6. Upon receiving the certified copy, the petitioner was advised to consider filing an appeal before the appropriate forum, which would then address the issue of non-service of the original order.

7. The petitioner sought the release of their sealed bank account, which was deferred to the appellate authority for consideration. The appellate authority was instructed to decide on the matter within 15 days of receiving the application.

8. The writ petition was disposed of without delving into the merits of the case, keeping the contentions of both parties open for future consideration. No costs were awarded in the judgment.