2017 (7) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Service of order - case of applicant is that they have not received the impugned order and they received the impugned order only 04.07.2016 on the directions of the appellate authority in RTI - whether the Revenue has complied with the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for delivery of impugned orders on the applicants or not? - Held that - if the order is sent by speed post, there should be proof of delivery is to be provided by the Revenue - Admittedly, no such proof has been produced by the Revenue. In that circumstances, presumption goes in favour of the applicant that they have not received the impugned orders in time, therefore, it is held that the Revenue has failed to prove the compliance of the provisions of Section 37(C) of the Act - the applications for Condonation of delay are allowed by condoning the delay in filing the appeals.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of impugned order by the applicant. Compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for delivery of impugned orders.

Analysis:

Condonation of Delay:
The applicant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing non-receipt of the impugned order until 04.07.2016, which was received on the directions of the appellate authority in RTI. The Ld. AR opposed, stating that the impugned order was sent by speed post with acknowledgment, and other co-notices received it in time and filed the appeal promptly. The Tribunal heard both parties and considered the circumstances.

Compliance with Section 37C:
The crucial issue before the Tribunal was whether the Revenue complied with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the delivery of impugned orders to the applicants. Section 37C outlines the methods of service for decisions, orders, summons, etc. The provision mandates proof of delivery when the order is sent by speed post. The Tribunal noted the absence of such proof presented by the Revenue.

Decision:
Upon reviewing the provisions of Section 37C and the lack of proof of delivery by the Revenue, the Tribunal held that the presumption favored the applicant for not receiving the impugned orders in time. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to demonstrate compliance with Section 37C. Consequently, the applications for Condonation of delay were allowed, and the delay in filing the appeals was condoned. The registry was directed to list the appeals for final hearing accordingly.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with statutory provisions for the delivery of orders and highlights the significance of providing proof of delivery, especially when using methods like speed post. The decision underscores the need for procedural adherence to ensure fairness in legal proceedings.