Court quashes orders due to improper service & time limit, remits for fresh decision

The court quashed the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal due to improper service of the order by the Original Authority/Assessing Authority and the appeal being filed within the prescribed time limit. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeals on merits. The court emphasized the importance of considering explanations for delays in appeals and did not express any opinion on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the service of the order by the Original Authority/Assessing Authority.
2. Bar of limitation in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Validity of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the service of the order by the Original Authority/Assessing Authority:
The petitioner contended that the order dated 31-01-2018 by the Original Authority/Assessing Authority was not communicated to him but to one Manoj Kumar Shrivastava, who was neither an employee nor known to the petitioner. The respondent argued that Manoj Kumar Shrivastava was the legal representative of the petitioner and hence, the service of the order upon him on 11-04-2018 was valid. The court examined Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates that service of decisions, orders, summons, etc., must be made to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized agent. The court found no evidence or document proving that Manoj Kumar Shrivastava was authorized by the petitioner to receive the order, thus deeming the service improper.

2. Bar of limitation in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals):
The petitioner filed an appeal on 30-07-2018, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of being barred by limitation. According to Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, an appeal must be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the decision, with a possible extension of one month. The court noted that since the service of the order was not properly made to the petitioner, the limitation period did not commence. Hence, the appeal filed by the petitioner was within the prescribed time limit.

3. Validity of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal:
The court observed that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal dismissed the appeals based on the incorrect assumption that the order was properly served and the appeal was time-barred. Given the improper service of the order, the court found the dismissal of the appeals unsustainable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, emphasizing that rules of limitation should not destroy the rights of parties and courts should show consideration if the explanation for delay is satisfactory and not mala fide.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned orders dated 31-08-2018 and 12-03-2021, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, respectively. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal, to decide the appeals on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and allowed the writ petitions without any order as to costs.

---