TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Adjudication order not validly served via registered post without proof of delivery.</h1> <h3>Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana. Versus M/s. Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd.</h3> Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana. Versus M/s. Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. - 2010 (255) E.L.T. 321 (P&H), [2010] 28 STT 135 (PUNJ. & ... Issues:Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding service of adjudication order through registered post for appeal timeline determination.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by CESTAT for not including transportation charges and notional interest in the assessable value of aerated waters, contravening Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, leading to an appeal by the respondent. The issue revolved around the timeline for filing the appeal, with the Revenue contending that it was time-barred. The Tribunal's Larger Bench held that despatching the order by registered post without proof of actual delivery did not constitute valid service. The High Court analyzed Section 37C of the 1944 Act, emphasizing that despatching the order by registered post to the correct address suffices for service, as per sub-section (2). Referring to legal precedents, the court highlighted the presumption of service when the correct address is used for registered post. The court concluded that sending the order by registered post to the correct address complies with Section 37C, placing the burden on the assessee to prove non-service. As the assessee failed to discharge this burden, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order.This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the service of decisions, orders, summons, etc., under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It establishes that despatching the order by registered post to the correct address is deemed as service, unless proven otherwise by the recipient. The court emphasized the importance of the correct address and the presumption of service under relevant legal provisions and precedents. The judgment underscores the burden on the recipient to rebut the presumption of service with cogent evidence. Overall, the decision provides clarity on the interpretation and application of Section 37C in cases of service through registered post, ensuring procedural compliance and fairness in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 