Communicated adjudication order was valid for appeal purposes despite no separate formal copy being served.

Communication of an adjudicating authority's decision through a Superintendent was sufficient where the order clearly recorded rejection of the request for single registration. The Tribunal held that the absence of a separately served formal copy did not render the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) non-maintainable, because the communicated letter conveyed the decision itself. The objection to maintainability therefore failed, and the challenge to the rejection order was not accepted. The dismissal of the appeal left the order rejecting single registration undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable merely because the Commissioner's decision was communicated through the Superintendent without serving a formal copy of the order.

Analysis: The order communicated to the appellant clearly recorded that the request for single registration had been examined and rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal held that the communication issued by the Superintendent conveyed the Commissioner's decision and there was no infirmity in the order challenged before it. The absence of a separately served formal copy did not affect the validity of the communicated decision for the purpose of the appeal.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability failed and the challenge to the order of rejection was not accepted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the order rejecting the request for single registration stood affirmed.

---