TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods and Service Tax paid on input services under Central Excise Rule, 2004. The appellant also purchases some of the motor vehicle parts from M/s. Rane NSK Ltd. Guduvanchery and are exporting the same to the foreign customers. During the course of verification of the books of accounts and central excise records of the appellant by the Internal Audit Officers of LTU Chennai, it was noticed that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid on services like Goods transport operator, Manpower supply, Custom House Agent, Commission to Foreign Agents, Bank Charges, Warehouse charges & segregation charges which are used commonly for manufacture as well as trading of goods cleared for export. The department being of the view that trading is a exempted service, and since the appellant had used the service above mentioned for exempted service, namely trading of goods cleared for export, as well as in manufacture and clearance of dutiable goods without maintaining separated accounts for the input services used in providing exempted services, the appellant was required to pay the amount equal to 6% of the value of exempted service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... frequent attempts, the appellant received a copy of the order only on 18.05.2016 and within a month, on 15.06.2016 the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellate Authority has erred in dismissing their appeal as time bar by mere observation that from a copy of the impugned order, it is clear that the same has been dispatched on 23.07.2015, and this been so, the claim of the appellant that the date of receipt of the impugned order is 18.05.2016, is a misstated claim and therefore lacks merit. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has thus erred in finding that the appeal has been delayed by nearly 9 months, much beyond the statutory time limit prescribed by the statute. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellate Authority has merely dismissed the appeal without relying on any proof that the said order has been received by the appellant. It is his submission that Section 37C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates the requirement of proof of service. He further submits that even on merits the appellant's had a good case as there are very many decisions in their favour and that in the appellant's own c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the record?", the Judgement was rendered. The relevant portions are as under: "14. Coming to the facts of the case in light of the provisions contained in Section 35 (1) of the Central Excise Act and the decisions rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in that regard, it is quite vivid that Section 35 (1) mandates that the purpose of communication of order by the Central Excise Officer is for the purpose of enabling the person aggrieved to file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the order so communicated and that period is also specifically provided to be 60 days from the date of communication of such decision to him by the Central Excise Officer, in this case, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and furthermore, power to condone the delay in filing the appeal has been restricted to the Commissioner (Appeals) by allowing the appeal to be filed within a further period of 30 days in addition to 60 days as specified in the proviso appended to Section 35 (1). Therefore, considering the period of limitation to file appeal as 60 + 30 = 90 days, appeal can be preferred within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order. There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art of the factory or warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order, summons or notice, as the case may be, is intended; and if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clauses (a) and (b), by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice. Sub-section (2) of Section 37C provides that every decision or order passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which the decision, order, summons or notice is tendered or delivered by post. 17. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Saral Wire Craft Private Limited (supra) may be noticed herein in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the provisions contained in Section 37C of the Central Excise Act held that every effort must be taken to meaningfully and realistically serve the affected party so as not merely to ensure that he has knowledge thereof but also to enable him to initiate any permissible action. It has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to condone the delay. There is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act as held by the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises (supra). Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise was obliged to strictly comply the provisions contained in Section 35 (1) read with Section 37C (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act and communicate the order to the person aggrieved, which, in the present case, is said to have been communicated to the appellant herein/assessee by speed post by dispatch/consignment No. EC080953003IN, but according to the document filed before this Court, the consignment is said to have been dispatched vide Speed Post/Consignment No. EC080953003IN on 15-12-2017, however, there is no proof of delivery in that regard, as record showing communication has been directed to be produced before this Court by order dated 14-2-2025. Even the communication dated 13-12-2018 between the Superintendent (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Raipur and the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Division Korba, which is the document filed by the appellant/assessee before this Court on 18-2-2025, would show that the consignment details are not found and is missing. As s....