2015 (10) TMI 1257 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Notice of hearing not served - Held that - On close reading of Section 37C of the Act, it is clear that as per Clause (a) Section 37C(1) the order shall be served by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due to the person, for whom it is intended. As per Clause (b) of Section 37C(1), if the orders cannot be served in the manner provided in Clause (a) of the said Section, then the order would be affixed at the conspicuous part of the factory. In the present case, it is admitted position that the order was not served as per Clause (a) of Section 37C(1) of the said Act and therefore, the service of the order is not legal and proper. - it is a fit case for condonation of filing of appeal. - main contention of the learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellants is that they could not file the reply to the Show Cause Notice and no proper opportunity of personal hearing was granted. On perusal of the impugned orders, we find that no personal hearing notice was issued in terms of Section 37C(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is observed by the Adjudicating authority that the notice of hearing was affixed at the factory gate. We also notice that the Appellant vide letter dt.10.12.2007 informed the change of address. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the said letter is in respect of de-bonding of the goods. In our view, the Appellants informed the change of address and it will be applicable in all respects. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Condonation of delay in filing appeals, service of orders under Section 37C of Central Excise Act, lack of personal hearing notice, change of address notification.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals: The Applicants sought condonation of delay in filing appeals due to non-receipt of impugned orders served as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Advocate argued that the orders were not served via registered post as required under Section 37C(1)(a) but were instead affixed at the factory gate. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy and allowed the applications for condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for legal and proper service of orders.

2. Service of orders under Section 37C: Section 37C of the Act mandates the service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. in specific ways. The Tribunal observed that the orders in question were not served in compliance with Clause (a) of Section 37C(1), which requires service by registered post with acknowledgment due. As the orders were instead affixed at the factory gate, it was deemed that the service was not legally valid, leading to the decision to condone the filing of appeals.

3. Lack of personal hearing notice: The Appellants contended that they were not given a proper opportunity for a personal hearing as required under Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that no personal hearing notice was issued, and the notice of hearing was affixed at the factory gate. Considering this deficiency, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed by remanding the case to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after providing the Appellants with a proper opportunity of hearing.

4. Change of address notification: The Appellants had informed about a change of address via a letter dated 10.12.2007. The Revenue argued that the letter was related to de-bonding of goods, but the Tribunal held that the change of address notification should be applicable in all respects. Consequently, the Appellants were granted the opportunity to defend their case before the Adjudicating authority, emphasizing the importance of a fair hearing in the interest of justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed multiple issues including the condonation of delay in filing appeals, the correct procedure for serving orders under Section 37C, the necessity of personal hearing notices, and the impact of a change of address notification on the Appellants' rights. The judgment focused on upholding procedural fairness and ensuring that the Appellants receive a fair opportunity to present their case before the Adjudicating authority.