TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Case Remanded for Appeal Review within Limitation Period</h1> <h3>Balarami Reddy & Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise. Hyderabad</h3> Balarami Reddy & Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise. Hyderabad - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Maintainability of appeal based on limitation period.2. Validity of service of order-in-original.3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of law regarding dispatch of orders.4. Comparison between dispatch by speed post and registered post with acknowledgment due.Issue 1: Maintainability of appeal based on limitation periodThe appeal was filed against the appellate Commissioner's order dismissing the assessee's appeal as time-barred due to the limitation period under section 85(3) of the Finance Act 1994. The appellant received the order-in-original in 2010 but filed the appeal in 2010, which was considered time-barred by the appellate authority.Issue 2: Validity of service of order-in-originalThe appellant claimed they did not receive a copy of the order-in-original in 2008 and only obtained it in 2010. The appellant argued that the order should have been sent by registered post with acknowledgment due as per section 37C of the Central Excise Act, instead of speed post without an acknowledgment card. The appellant relied on a judgment stating that dispatch by speed post was not a valid service.Issue 3: Interpretation of relevant provisions of law regarding dispatch of ordersThe department argued that the dispatch by speed post was in compliance with the law and should be considered valid service. They cited a case where the High Court accepted speed post as sufficient for the purpose of dispatch. The department claimed that as the postal article did not return, it must have been received by the appellant.Issue 4: Comparison between dispatch by speed post and registered post with acknowledgment dueThe tribunal found that the dispatch of the order-in-original by speed post did not comply with the legal requirement of sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due under section 37C of the Central Excise Act. The tribunal rejected the department's argument that speed post was equivalent to registered post with acknowledgment due, emphasizing the importance of acknowledgment for ensuring delivery to the addressee.In conclusion, the tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal as filed within the limitation period and proceed to dispose of it on merits. The tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the previous order and disposing of the stay application.
TaxTMI 