2025 (12) TMI 1609 - AT - Service Tax

Service of adjudication order u/s37C: delivery to office security questioned; appeal time-bar rejection set aside, remanded.

The dominant issue was whether service of the adjudication order was effected in accordance with s.37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 so as to trigger ... Rejection of appeal on the ground of being time barred - condonation of delay of 163 days in filing the appeal - applicability of provisions of Section 37C of CEA - provisions of Section 37C have been followed or not - HELD THAT:- In Section 37C Clause (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944, it has been clearly mentioned that every decision or order passed or any submissions or notice issued under this Act or Rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which the decision, order, summons or notices tendered or delivered by post or courier referred to in sub-section (1) or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1). In Section 37C Clause (1), (a) it has been clearly mentioned that any decision or order passed under this Act shall be served by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice or sending it by register post with acknowledgment due or by speed post with proof of delivery or by courier approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent. Now, in this case, the copy of order passed by Adjudicating Authority has been served on the “Security Personnel” at Surat office allegedly on 22nd August, 2015 - this aspect has not been properly considered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in passing the impugned Order. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was duty bound to have considered this aspect and should have clearly drawn a conclusion whether provisions of Section 37C have been followed or not. Matter remanded back to the Lower Adjudicating Authority with the direction to examine whether provisions of Section 37C of the Excise Act have been followed properly by the department in serving the copy of Order-in-Original to the appellant and thereafter he will pass appropriate order in accordance with law - appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Lower Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the appellate rejection on limitation was sustainable without a conclusive determination of the date and validity of service of the adjudication order in terms of Section 37C, particularly where the order was delivered to 'Security Personnel' at the earlier office despite intimation of change in communication address. (ii) Whether, in the absence of proper examination of compliance with Section 37C, the matter required remand for fresh determination of service and consequential limitation. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Validity and deemed service under Section 37C and its impact on limitation Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court noted Section 37C(1) requires service of orders by tendering or by specified postal/courier modes to the person intended or their authorised agent, and Section 37C(2) deems service on the date the order is tendered or delivered by the prescribed modes (or affixed as provided). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the adjudication order was stated to have been served by speed post on 'Security Personnel' at the Surat office. The Court considered that the Commissioner (Appeals), while rejecting the appeal as time-barred, did not properly examine whether such delivery constituted service on the intended person or authorised agent and thus whether Section 37C had been complied with. The Court held this service-related aspect was material and required a clear finding before limitation could be conclusively applied. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the limitation rejection could not stand without a clear conclusion on whether service was effected in accordance with Section 37C, including whether delivery to 'Security Personnel' satisfied statutory service requirements. Issue (ii): Necessity and scope of remand Interpretation and reasoning: Since the validity of service under Section 37C directly affects the starting point for computing limitation, and since the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to conclusively determine compliance with Section 37C, the Court held that the appropriate course was to remand for a fresh examination and a clear finding on service. The Court directed the authority to specifically decide whether the copy of the adjudication order was served in accordance with Section 37C and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Conclusion: The Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the appeal as time-barred and allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing fresh adjudication limited to examining and concluding on proper service under Section 37C and consequential action in law.