9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curity person Shri Rajendra Singh Bisht, admittedly he is not the authorized person of the appellant company. Therefore, the order was neither served to the appellant nor to any authorized person. In accordance with Section 37 C (a) the order was not served as per the statutory provision. Therefore, such service cannot be considered as service of the order. The appellant after knowing about the Order-In-Original through recovery notice of the department searched the order and could trace it on 25.10.2023. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on time bar, merits of the case was not considered by him. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the matter on merit - Appeal is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Act, 1944 the order has to be served to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized agent if any. In the present case, the order was neither served to the appellant nor to his authorized agent. Therefore, the first service of the order is not as per law and the same cannot be treated as date of communication of the order. He submits that the appellant was not aware about the Order-In-Original only when they received a letter of recovery notice dated 16.10.2023 from department on 25.10.2023, they came to know about the Order-In-Original dated 27.02.2023 thereafter, they searched the order and it was found in the drawer of the security agency personal of the company Rajendra Singh Bisht who resigned from the service w.e.f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he merit of the case. The statutory provision for service of the order is provided under Section 37 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is reproduced below:- [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 2[or by speed post with proof of delivery or by courier approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963)], to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any; (b) if the decision, order, summons or notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch service cannot be considered as service of the order. The appellant after knowing about the Order-In-Original through recovery notice of the department searched the order and could trace it on 25.10.2023. In our considered view, as per the trite law Under Section 37 C and the facts in the present case, we are of the view that 25.10.2023 is the date of communication to be considered and the appeal was filed on 12.12.2023 that is within the normal period of 60 days. It is the settled position by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft Private Limited (supra) that any order served to person who is not authorized, the said service cannot be considered as the service of the order. Therefore, we are of the view that in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
