Dismissal of central excise appeal upheld due to improper notice service.

The Court upheld the dismissal of the central excise appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appellant, a tobacco company, failed to properly serve the notice in appeal under Section 37C(1)(c) of the Act, as required. The Tribunal found the appellant's method of affixing the notice at the factory gate and the Managing Director's old residence inadequate, leading to the appeal's dismissal for non-prosecution. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the necessity of following the prescribed service procedures.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against Final Order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Service of notice in appeal under Section 37C(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the Final Order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appellant, a tobacco company, was accused of clandestine manufacture of cigarettes and removal without paying proper excise duty. The original authority confirmed the show cause notice, demanding duty and imposing penalties. The appellate authority modified the order, directing to appropriate the duty paid voluntarily by the Managing Director. The Department appealed to CESTAT, which was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The central issue revolved around the service of notice in appeal under Section 37C(1)(c) of the Act. The Senior Standing Counsel argued that the Tribunal should have allowed the appellant to serve the notice as per the Act. Section 37C outlines methods of service, including tendering, registered post, affixing at the premises, or on the notice board of the issuing authority. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to follow the proper procedure for serving notice in appeal pending before CESTAT. The appellant only affixed the notice at the factory gate and the old residence of the Managing Director, without obtaining permission and following Section 37C(1)(c) requirements.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that in the circumstances where the notice was only affixed at the factory gate and the Managing Director's old residence, the appeal dismissal for non-prosecution was justified. The Court emphasized that the appellant should have followed the prescribed procedure under Section 37C(1)(c) for serving the notice in appeal. Therefore, the central excise appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision based on the lack of proper service of notice.

---