Proper service under Central Excise law governs condonation where family members were not authorised agents.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because service of the adjudication order was not shown to be in accordance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Delivery to the appellant's son and daughter did not amount to proper service, as they were not authorised agents, and the record did not show service by registered post with acknowledgement due. The appellant's affidavit that she was abroad for medical treatment was accepted as a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the appeal and stay application were taken on record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 31/2 years in filing the appeal should be condoned, having regard to the manner of service of the adjudication order and the appellant's explanation.

Analysis: The order imposed a substantial personal penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal noted that service of orders is governed by Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which contemplates tendering the order to the person concerned or sending it by registered post with acknowledgement due, or to an authorised agent. Service on the appellant's son and daughter was held not to amount to proper service because they were not authorised agents, and the record did not show service by registered post with acknowledgement due. In these circumstances, and considering the appellant's affidavit that she was abroad for medical treatment, the delay was held to have been satisfactorily explained.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal and stay application were taken on record.

---