2010 (2) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in-law of the Managing Partner of the appellant firm is a valid service in accordance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the short point falling for our consideration. 3. The brief facts are that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) passed the order on 23-9-2004 confirming the demand of Rs. 38,05,313/- under Rule 96(ZP) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 r/w Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from April, 1998 to March, 1999 and April, 1999 to March, 2000 together with interest and also imposing penalty of equal amount and the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise was communicated by registered post on 7-10-2004 and the order was received by daughter-in-law of Mr. R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le when the statute prescribes the method and manner for the performance of an act viz., the mode of service of order, notice, summons etc., such act viz., service of order, notice, summons etc., ought to be performed only in that manner and in no other manner? (iv)   Whether the order of the Tribunal stands vitiated for failing to take into account the relevant factor viz., Mrs. Thilagavathy is not an authorised agent of the appellant firm and thus the service is bad and invalid? 6. We have heard Mr. G.R.M. Palaniappan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the Tribunal stands vitiated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the daughter-in-law of Mr. Ranganathan, Managing Partner of the appellant firm. It is also not in dispute that notice has been served in the correct address of the Managing Partner and the appellant firm cannot raise the plea of non-service of notice. Even though the expressions used in Section 37C(1)(a) are "the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent", in our considered view, the order having been served in the correct address is a valid service of notice in accordance with Section 37C. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sakari Sangh Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [(1987) 066 STC 0024], which arose under Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules a....