Service of orders under excise law was not proved, so the appeal limitation period did not begin

Service of the orders-in-original was not satisfactorily proved under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which required registered post with acknowledgment due. The record did not establish such service, and there was no clear evidence that the recipient was duly authorised under Rule 3 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant was therefore given the benefit of doubt, and the limitation period could not be treated as having validly commenced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders-in-original were satisfactorily served on the appellant so as to start the limitation period for filing the appeals.

Analysis: Service of the orders was examined in the light of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which requires service by registered post with acknowledgment due. The record did not show such service, and there was also no clear evidence that the person who received the orders was duly authorised under Rule 3 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In these circumstances, and in the absence of satisfactory proof of service, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt.

Conclusion: The service of the orders was not proved satisfactorily, and the limitation period could not be treated as having validly commenced against the appellant.

---