Tribunal Validates Service Order by Affixing: Appeal Rejected on Limitation Grounds

The Tribunal upheld the service of an order through affixing on factory premises, rejecting the appellant's appeal as barred by limitation. Despite the appellant's challenge on the authenticity of the service method, the witness's testimony confirming the affixing of papers supported the Commissioner's decision. Relying on a previous Tribunal decision, the appellant's argument for proper service methods was countered by the Revenue's stance that affixing sufficed. The Tribunal emphasized the witness's presence during affixing as crucial, ultimately concluding that the service was valid, leading to the rejection of the appeal based on the confirmed service method.

---

---

Issues:
1. Service of order through affixing on factory premises
2. Authenticity of service through affixing order
3. Applicability of previous Tribunal decision in similar case

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner as barred by limitation due to the service of the order through affixing it on the factory premises. The appellant argued that no copy of the order was served on them, questioning the authenticity of the service method.

2. During the remand proceedings, a witness confirmed witnessing the affixing of some papers by the Central Excise Officer, leading the Commissioner to uphold the service method and reject the appeal. The appellant contended that the witness's testimony was insufficient to confirm the authenticity of the service through affixing.

3. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision in Elektro Kool Industries case, highlighting the importance of proper service methods. However, the Revenue argued that service through affixing the order on the factory premises was sufficient, citing a Capital Ferro Alloys case to support their stance.

4. The cross-examination revealed that the witness saw papers being pasted on the factory premises, although he did not confirm that it was the specific order in question. Despite this, the Tribunal emphasized that the witness's presence during the affixing of the paper was crucial in confirming the service method.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that affixing the order on the factory premises constituted valid service, and the witness's testimony supported this conclusion. As no other paper was affixed on the factory premises on the relevant date, the appeal was rejected as being beyond limitation based on the confirmed service method.

---