Tribunal remands case for not following proper service rules, emphasizes importance of correct procedures.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appeal solely on limitation grounds without considering the merits. It emphasized that affixing orders on premises is a secondary mode of service after registered post with acknowledgment due. As the impugned order did not demonstrate initial service via registered post, the case was remanded for further examination. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following the prescribed modes of service before resorting to secondary methods. Consequently, the stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed on limitation without considering merits.
2. Disputed issue of limitation.
3. Service of orders under Section 37C.
4. Mode of service when first mode exhausted.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation without delving into the merits of the case. The matter had been previously remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the disputed issue of limitation. The appellant highlighted the provision of Section 37C and a Tribunal decision emphasizing that affixing orders on the appellant's premises is not sufficient service.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's contention regarding the service of the impugned order, stating that the order was affixed on the factory premises as the unit was closed. However, the appellant argued that there was no finding that the order was first served by registered post with acknowledgment due before resorting to affixing it on the premises. The Tribunal emphasized that affixing orders on premises is a secondary mode of service.

3. Section 37C mandates that decisions or orders should be served by registered post with acknowledgment due as the primary method. If this mode fails, orders can be affixed to the premises. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not show that the order was initially sent via registered post with acknowledgment due before resorting to affixing it on the factory premises. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and remanded the matter for further examination.

4. The Tribunal reiterated that the mode of affixing orders on premises should only be employed if the primary mode of service via registered post with acknowledgment due fails. Since there was no evidence that the order was first sent through the primary mode, the Tribunal decided to remand the case for the Commissioner (Appeals) to reassess the issue based on this factual aspect. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.

---