Service by speed post plus personal delivery with dated acknowledgement satisfies statutory proof of service; delay not condoned.

Addresses validity of service under Section 37C (as applied by Section 83) and condonation of delay. Holds that proof of dispatch by speed post coupled with subsequent in-person delivery with a dated acknowledgement meets statutory proof-of-service requirements; denial of receipt and age of recipient did not negate acknowledged delivery. Regarding delay, absence of a bona fide explanation, shifting reasons, and prior opportunities for hearing demonstrated lack of due diligence, so a 318-day delay was not condoned. Operative effect: service deemed valid and condonation application rejected, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order-in-appeal dated 28.02.2023 was validly served in terms of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994; (ii) Whether the delay of 318 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned.

Issue (i): Validity of service of the order-in-appeal under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The Department produced documentary evidence that the original order-in-appeal was despatched by speed post on 28.02.2023 (returned with postal remark) and thereafter forwarded to the CGST Division-I, Kota for personal delivery. The Department produced an acknowledgement dated 20.04.2023 evidencing in-person delivery to the appellant's address. The statutory provision (Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944) contemplates service by postal dispatch and alternative methods of service; the combination of speed post dispatch and subsequent personal delivery with an acknowledgement satisfies the requirement of proof of service. The appellant's denial of receipt was countered by documentary proof and challenged on grounds of alleged minority of the recipient; documentary records of date of birth were considered but did not negate the acknowledged delivery. The appellate record also showed repeated opportunities for hearing and priordispatches to the same address.

Conclusion: The impugned order-in-appeal was validly served in terms of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applied under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Conclusion in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Condonation of delay of 318 days in filing the present appeal.

Analysis: The appellant's grounds for delay were examined against the chronology of past notices, opportunities of personal hearing, and the proofs of dispatch and delivery. The appellant offered shifting explanations including non-receipt, reliance on a bank notice and subsequent receipt of an unattested copy; these were evaluated alongside the Department's documentary proof of service and the appellant's prior conduct showing lack of diligence. The appellant failed to demonstrate bona fide reasons sufficient to excuse the long delay.

Conclusion: The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Conclusion against the appellant and in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal finds that service of the order-in-appeal was valid and that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay; accordingly the application for condonation is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of dispatch by speed post followed by in-person delivery with a dated acknowledgement satisfies service requirements under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as applied under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994), and absence of bona fide explanation and lack of due diligence disentitles the appellant to condonation of delay.

---