2015 (10) TMI 1803 - AT - Central Excise

Cancellation of registration certificate - Held that - From the Section 37C the order is to be sent to the assessee through the registered post. In this case admittedly order was not communicated through registered post or any other method prescribed under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore I hold that communication to the appellant for cancellation of registration certificate dated 30-4-2010 as defective. - In these circumstances, I hold that appellant has filed appeal before ld. Commissioner (A) within time. Therefore impugned order is set aside. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of appeal as time-barred due to cancellation of registration certificate and communication of order.

The appellant filed an appeal against the dismissal of their appeal by the ld. Commissioner (A) as time-barred. The appellant had applied for registration on 12-3-2010, and they were informed via email on 13-3-2010 that the registration had been issued. Subsequently, on 30-4-2011, they received an email stating that their registration certificate had been canceled. The ld. Commissioner (A) dismissed their appeal as time-barred since it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The appellant contended that the order of cancellation was not properly communicated to them as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and thus, the appeal was within time. The ld. AR argued that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit and was rightly rejected by the ld. Commissioner (A).

The main contention revolved around the communication of the order of cancellation of the registration certificate. The appellant claimed that they had applied for registration on 12-3-2010, whereas the respondent argued that the application was made on 23-3-2010. The appellant asserted that the order of cancellation dated 30-4-2010 was not properly served as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which requires communication through registered post. The Tribunal noted that the order was not communicated through the prescribed method, rendering the communication defective. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant had filed the appeal within time, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case to the ld. Commissioner (A) for further consideration on merits.

The Tribunal referred to Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which outlines the method of communication of orders. The section specifies that decisions or orders must be served through registered post or other prescribed methods. Since the order of cancellation was not communicated through the appropriate channels as mandated by the Act, the Tribunal deemed the communication to the appellant as defective. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had filed the appeal within the stipulated time frame, overturning the decision of the ld. Commissioner (A) and remanding the case for a review on its merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the ld. Commissioner (A) for a thorough examination of the appellant's contentions on merits. The appeal was disposed of based on the findings related to the defective communication of the order of cancellation of the registration certificate, ultimately leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.