Service of tribunal orders must be proved by prescribed means; mere dispatch is insufficient without proof of delivery.

Section 37C of the Central Excise Act was held to apply to service of CESTAT orders, because the Act's statutory mandate on service was not displaced by Rule 35 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which was treated as supplementary. The record showed only a covering letter and dispatch stamp, without postal receipt, acknowledgment due card, or proof of tender or delivery by registered post. On that basis, service was not proved, the deeming fiction under Section 37C and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act did not arise, and the refusal to restore the appeal was set aside with restoration for fresh hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory requirement of service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; (ii) whether, on the facts, the respondents proved service of the Tribunal's order so as to justify refusal to restore the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory requirement of service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: Section 37C speaks broadly of service of decisions and orders passed under the Act. Section 35D and Rule 35 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 govern Tribunal procedure and dispatch, but they do not displace the statutory mandate of service. The provisions were read harmoniously, with Rule 35 treated as supplementary to the Act and Section 37C governing service of Tribunal orders as well.

Conclusion: The requirement of service under Section 37C applies to orders passed by the CESTAT.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the respondents proved service of the Tribunal's order so as to justify refusal to restore the appeal.

Analysis: The record showed only a covering letter and dispatch stamp. There was no postal receipt, no acknowledgment due card, and no proof of tender or delivery by registered post. In the absence of proof of dispatch and service as required by Section 37C, the deeming fiction under that provision and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not arise. The Tribunal therefore erred in relying only on the absence of return of the postal article undelivered.

Conclusion: The respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving service of the order.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order refusing restoration was set aside and the appeal before the Tribunal was restored for fresh hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires service of decisions or orders, mere dispatch is insufficient unless the authority proves tender or delivery in the manner prescribed; procedural rules cannot override the statutory mandate of service.

---