2017 (9) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Remitted for Timely Decision on Limitation, Grievances Addressed

Philips Electronics India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Tribunal remitted the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the controversy on limitation within three months of receiving the order. The ... Service of order - Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellant's serious grievance is that the order alleged to have been served on the appellant was not delivered to it which has caused delay in filing appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that: - Record reveals that the date on which the appeal came to the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been recorded by him. In absence of the date on which appeal was filed, computation of period of limitation is not possible - Law is specific that an order can be issued by Registered Post with acknowledgement due to the person or to its authorized person. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has verified the status of the Registered Post sent by the adjudicating authority and found that the same was served on 04.01.2008 as per the letter dated 23.06.2008 of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices. We find difficulty as to ascertain whether the envelope containing order carried the address properly. That needs verification - the learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall consider the date of filing of the appeal for computing the limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues involved: Appeal against order-in-original dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) due to delay in filing, service of order not received by appellant causing delay, compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for service of decisions/orders.Analysis:1. Delay in filing appeal: The appellant raised a serious grievance that the order allegedly served on them was not received, leading to a delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the order should not be served on an unauthorized person, citing a decision of the Apex Court. However, the Revenue contended that the appeal did not reach the Commissioner (Appeals) within the stipulated time, resulting in its dismissal for being barred by limitation.2. Compliance with Section 37C: The record did not specify the date on which the appeal reached the Commissioner (Appeals), making it impossible to compute the period of limitation. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was deemed relevant to determine the starting date of the limitation period for service of decisions/orders. The law mandates that orders can be issued by Registered Post with acknowledgment due to the intended person or their authorized agent.3. Verification of service: The Commissioner (Appeals) verified that the order was sent by Registered Post with acknowledgment due and was served on a specific date. It was confirmed that the order satisfied the conditions of Rule 37(c) by being issued in the prescribed manner. The Commissioner also examined whether the order was addressed to the intended person, meeting the basic requirements outlined in relevant judgments.4. Precedents and verification: The decisions of the High Courts of Madras and Delhi were cited to support the compliance of issuing orders by Registered Post with Rule 37C. However, there was a need for verification to ensure that the envelope containing the order was properly addressed. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to consider the date of filing the appeal for computing the limitation and to proceed with deciding the appeal on merit if the limitation aspect was satisfied.5. Remittance of appeal: The Tribunal remitted the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the controversy on limitation within three months of receiving the order. The Commissioner was directed to address the appellant's grievance regarding the service of the order and to exercise discretionary power if necessary to proceed with the appeal on its merits.