2016 (1) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... time. 2. The appellant has contended that the primary adjudication order claimed have to be sent by speed post was not received by it and when it received copy thereof, it filed the appeal within the prescribed period. It also contended that service by speed post is not in accordance with provisions of Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the appeal as time barred. It cited the following judgments in support of its contentions:-  (i) Premier Garment Processing Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2015 (39) STR 812 (Mad.)].  (ii) New Drug & Chemical Co. Vs. Union of India [2015 (325) ELT 313 (Bom.)]  (iii) M/s. Ven....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served, -  (a) By tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized agent, if any:" Thus as per the said Section, the primary adjudication order was required to be sent by RPAD. Bombay High Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2012 (26) STR 229 (Bomb)], Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Best Dyeing [2012 (27) STR 97 (P&H)] and Madras High Court in the case of Premier Garments Processing Vs. CESTAT, Chennai (supra) have unequivocally held that communication by speed post was not covered as a mo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....requirement of the said section. The amended provision of Section 37C(1)(a) ibid effective from 10.05.2013 allows sending of the orders by "speed post with proof of delivery". It is admitted by Revenue that in this case, it has no proof of delivery of the primary adjudication order. Thus in fact, even with the support of the judgements Allahabad High Court in the case of Mirzapur Electrical Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad (supra) and Orissa High Court in the case of Jay Balaji Jyoti Steels Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Kolkatta (supra), Revenue falls short of fulfilling the requirement of Section 37C(1)(a) ibid. Regarding Revenues contention that the Orissa High Court judgment in the case of Jai Balaji Jyoti Steel Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Kolkatta (supra) h....