TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delayed beyond the condonable period. 3. It is the case of the Appellant-Assessee that the Order-In-Original dated 25.02.2022, dispatched by the Department on 25.02.2022, was never received by them. It was only in the month of January 2023, when the Departmental Officers called the Appellant-Assessee over phone to deposit the Service Tax and penalty in view of the Order-In-Original dated 25.02.2022, the Appellant-Assessee came to know about the demand raised and the penalty imposed. Since the Appellant-Assessee was not aware of any such order and the demand of Service Tax raised on him, he immediately contacted the jurisdictional division office, where he was informed about the Order-In-Original, which was dispatched by post, but no deta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the concerned party. 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. The provisions of Section 37C regarding service of decision etc. are reproduced for ready reference:- ""SECTION 37C. - (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons 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 authorised agent, if any; (b) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch requires that an order must be tendered on the concerned person or his authorized agent, in other words, on no other person, to ensure efficaciousness. We must immediately recall the decision in Taylor v. Taylor - (1875) 1 Ch. D 426, rendered venerable by virtue of its jural acceptance and applicable for over a century. It was approved by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor - (1935-36) 63 IA 372 and was subsequently applied in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh - AIR 1954 SC 322, State of UP v. Singhara Singh - AIR 1964 SC 358, Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala - (1999) 3 SCC 422 and more recently in Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat - (2014) 8 SCC 425. As observed by this Court in Babu Verghese, "it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the presumption in the absence of proof of delivery not produced by the Department. During the relevant time as per the provisions of Section 37C(1)(a), any order passed under the Act was to be served through Registered Post or Speed Post to the person for whom it was entitled or his authorized agent with acknowledgement due as proof of delivery. Thus, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to produce evidence of delivery or service which is the mandate as per the Section 37C(1)(a) of the Act. In absence of proof of delivery of order dated 25.02.2022, the same cannot be deemed as served on the Appellant as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft vs. CCE & ST 2015 (322) E.L.T. 192 (S.C.). In absence of such pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....तà¥à¤ªà¤¾à¤¦ शà¥à¤²à¥à¤•à¤®à¤£à¥à¤¡à¤² 1984/1, शोकन बाग़ रोड, इलाइट चौराहा, à¤à¤¾à¤‚सी 284001 Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Division, 1984/1, Jhokan Bagh Road, Elite Crossing, Jhansi 202001 Date: 22.08.2025 सेवा में, FILED IN COURT ON सहायक आयà¥à¤•à¥à¤¤ (AR), Office of the Commissioner (AR). CESTAT Allahabad, 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines Allahabad - 211001 04 SEP 2025 DADRIAN CESTAT ALLAHABAD महो....