2005 (7) TMI 140 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dismissed as time-barred due to delay in filing.
2. Dispute regarding the service of the adjudication order and its impact on the appeal timeline.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal Dismissed as Time-Barred
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing a delay of 797 days in filing the appeal. The appellant contended that the order was passed on a specific date but was only pasted at the factory premises later. The appellant argued that since the order was not served through registered AD as required by Section 37C(1) of the Act, the appeal should not be considered time-barred. However, the revenue maintained that the order was duly pasted at the factory premises in the presence of witnesses, and a copy was later supplied to the appellant upon request.

Issue 2: Service Dispute and Legal Precedent
The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of Section 37C(1) of the Central Excise Act regarding the procedure for serving orders. The appellant relied on the requirement of service through registered AD before resorting to pasting at the factory premises. However, referencing a judgment by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal held that the mode of service under the Act is alternative, and there is no specific priority in the order of service methods. The Tribunal emphasized that as the order was pasted at the factory premises in the presence of witnesses, it was considered valid service, dismissing the appellant's argument that the order was not properly served.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred, emphasizing that the order was effectively served through pasting at the factory premises as per the alternative mode allowed by the Act. The legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court further supported the validity of the service method adopted in this case.