Tribunal remands case due to Speed Post Register manipulation, orders inquiry and prompt decision

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and remanded the case for a decision on merits, noting manipulation in the Speed Post Register. An inquiry by the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs was directed. The appeal was deemed timely, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to decide promptly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the appeal filed by the Appellant.
2. Proper service of the order dated 29 August 2017.
3. Alleged manipulation in the Speed Post Register.
4. Compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Necessity for further inquiry into the dispatch and receipt of the order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Appeal Filed by the Appellant:
The Appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 29 August 2017, which was allegedly served on 12 September 2017. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as barred by time, stating it was filed beyond the permissible period under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellant contended that the order was received by hand on 6 August 2018 and by speed post on 11 August 2018, making the appeal filed on 4 September 2018 timely.

2. Proper Service of the Order Dated 29 August 2017:
The core issue was whether the order was properly served on 12 September 2017. The Assistant Commissioner claimed the order was sent via speed post No. ER924187517IN on 1 September 2017. The Appellant argued that this envelope contained a different letter dated 1 September 2017 from the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, Range-II (Balotra), Jodhpur, not the order dated 29 August 2017.

3. Alleged Manipulation in the Speed Post Register:
The Appellant provided evidence suggesting manipulation in the Speed Post Register. The entry for 1 September 2017 appeared to be inserted later, and the speed post number did not match the sequence of other entries. The affidavit from the Assistant Commissioner and the inspection of the registers supported the Appellant's claim of manipulation.

4. Compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 37C mandates that orders be served by registered post with acknowledgment due, speed post with proof of delivery, or courier. The Department failed to maintain proof of delivery, relying only on the fact that the speed post was not returned. The Tribunal found that the Department did not comply with the proper service requirements.

5. Necessity for Further Inquiry:
The President of the Tribunal concluded that the order dated 29 August 2017 was not served on the Appellant on 12 September 2017 but was first made available on 6 August 2018. The Technical Member, however, suggested further inquiry into the dispatch records of the Range Office. The Third Member, Dr. D M Misra, agreed with the President, finding no need for further inquiry and concluding that the appeal was filed within the stipulated period.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order dated 1 January 2019 by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for a decision on merits. The Tribunal also noted the manipulation in the Speed Post Register and directed an inquiry by the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The appeal was deemed timely, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to decide the appeal expeditiously.

---