2019 (11) TMI 1040 - AT - Central Excise

Service of adjudication order - Time Limitation - the adjudication order was passed by the adjudicating authority on 12.02.2014 and as per the records of the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the same was sent to the appellant on 17.10.2014 almost more than 8 months of passing the order through speed post - no record of delivery of the said order on the appellant, but as per the track event, it is shown that on 18.10.2014 - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - No acknowledgement receipt has been produced by the Revenue in support of the service of the adjudication order. Moreover, during the impugned period, service through speed post was not proper service in terms of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, therefore, the adjudication order was not served on the appellant. Hence, the appeal cannot be dismissed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as time barred. Further, the adjudication order is itself an exparte order. The matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication with the direction to the appellant to appear before the adjudication authority on 11.11.2019 to fix a date of hearing and thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall allow an opportunity on being heard to the appellant and after that, the adjudicating authority shall pass an order in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order dismissed as barred by limitation due to non-service of adjudication order on the appellant.

Analysis:
1. Service of Adjudication Order: The appellant contended that the adjudication order was not served upon them as they were not located at the mentioned postal address. Discrepancies in the address mentioned in the order and the appeal papers further supported the claim of non-service. The appellant argued that during the relevant period, service through speed post was not considered proper under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted the absence of an acknowledgment receipt and held that the order was not served on the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

2. Ex Parte Order: The Tribunal observed that the adjudication order was an ex parte order. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the appellant to appear before the authority on a specified date to fix a hearing, ensuring that the appellant is given an opportunity to present their case. The adjudicating authority was instructed to pass a new order in accordance with the law after hearing the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dismissing the appeal and disposed of the case by remanding it back for fresh adjudication. The decision highlighted the importance of proper service of adjudication orders and ensuring that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case before the authorities.