9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no proper service as contemplated under the law in this case. The learned counsel pleaded for a sympathetic and a lenient treatment in view of the situation of the appellant but unfortunately, we are bound by the law and legal provisions. Accordingly, the appeal itself has to be rejected at this stage itself and we do so. - Appeal rejected - Decided against the assessee. - ST/26944/2013-DB - Final Order No. 20629/2014 - Dated:- 29-4-2014 - S/Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) Shri Lalit Mohan Chandna, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Appeal has been dismissed by the learned Commissioner on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 37 of Central Excise Act (CEA), the service of the order is a must and when there is no service, on the basis of the date of affixing of the order on the door of the residence of the appellant could not have been considered as date of service and therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. 3. It is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 37C of CEA before we proceed further : SECTION 37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. - (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served, - (a) by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Margra Industries Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi [2006 (202) E.L.T. 244 (Tri.-LB) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 81 (Tri.-LB)]; Ashok R. Mistry v. CC (Import), ACC, Sahar, Mumbai [2009 (244) E.L.T. 280 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Shakti Foam Udyog v. CCE, Delhi-IV [2007 (208) E.L.T. 273 (Tri.-Del.) = 2008 (11) S.T.R. 429 (Tribunal)], Triveni Glass Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad [2008 (224) E.L.T. 403 (Tri.-Del.) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 41 (Tribunal)], Suresh Bafna v. CC CE (Appeals) Goa [2009 (234) E.L.T. 606 (Bom.) = 2010 (19) S.T.R. 463 (Bom.)], Bharat Travels Co. v. CST, Ahmedabad [2010 (20) S.T.R. 646 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] and CCE, Ludhiana v. Best Dyeing [2011 (271) E.L.T. 518 (P H) = 2012 (27) S.T.R. 97 (P H)]. 5. As regards the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong address in spite of the fact that the appellant had given a revised address for communication. Therefore, this decision is also not relevant. As regards the decision in the case of Bharat Travels Co., it relates to merits of liability of Service Tax on rent-a-cab service and in this case appeal has been dismissed not on merits. In the case of Best Dyeing, Hon ble High Court of P H took the view that dispatch by speed post is not the method contemplated under the law. It is not the case of the Department in this case that the order was served by post at all. It is quite clear that the service considered by the Revenue is the service as contemplated under Section 37C(1)(b) of CEA and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
