https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122129 Service of the orders-in-original was not satisfactorily proved under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which required registered post with acknowledgment due. The record did not establish such service, and there was no clear evidence that the recipient was duly authorised under Rule 3 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant was therefore given the benefit of doubt, and the limitation period could not be treated as having validly commenced. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122129 Service of the orders-in-original was not satisfactorily proved under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which required registered post with acknowledgment due. The record did not establish such service, and there was no clear evidence that the recipient was duly authorised under Rule 3 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant was therefore given the benefit of doubt, and the limitation period could not be treated as having validly commenced. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122129