2024 (12) TMI 1132

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner (Appeals) has not put the appellant to notice to explain about the gap of 3 years and also about the communication of the Order-In-Original, therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. 2.1 He further submits that the order was not received admittedly as per the report called from the Assistant Commissioner by the Commissioner (Appeals), as the factory was closed and consequently, order was pasted on the notice board of the office of the Assistant Commissioner. He submits that this is not a proper service of the order, as the provision of Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been followed sequentially. It is his submission that at the first time, the order should be sent by registered post and i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of natural justice by not putting the appellant to notice about the delay in filing the appeal. It is also observed that the commissioner (Appeals) has obtained a report from the Assistant Commissioner even those report have not been provided to the appellant. Therefore there is gross violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals). Secondly, on going through his observation, we find that the contention of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is that the department has served the Order-in-Original following the provision of Section 37C, which reads as under:- "Section 37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....), first the department is supposed to send the order by registered post and if it is not possible to be delivered thereafter the order should be affixed to some conspicuous part of the factory, warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order is intended and in case the order cannot be served in the manner prescribed under 37C(1) (a) and (b) then only the order should be affixed on the notice board of the office of the department. Therefore, it is found that instead of affixing a copy on the notice board, and since the order was returned which was sent by post, the department was supposed to affix copy of the order at the factory, which was not complied by the department. Therefor....