TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order-in-original bearing No. 02/2013 dated 31.01.2013. The appeal against the said order has been rejected vide the aforementioned Order-in-Appeal the order under challenge. 2. We have heard Ms. Jwaria Kainaat, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rajeev Kapoor, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) within prescribed time frame of two months from the date of receipt of Order-in-Original. It is further submitted that the appellant was not aware about the proceedings initiated by the department, as the appellant had never received Show Cause Notice nor the notice from original adjudicating authority nor even the copy of Order-in-Original from the department. However, in Order-in-Appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly observed that the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation despite that the limitation starts from the date of communication of order. Though the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the date of communication shown by the appellant is not correct however he has not given the date on which the order was served upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Hiralal supports this, establishing that proper dispatch creates a legal fiction of knowledge. While relying upon the following decisions, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. • KRISHNA SWAROOP AGARWAL (DEAD) THR. LR. Versus ARVIND KUMAR 2025 (7) TMI 1451 Supreme Court of India Citation: 2025 INSC 859 • Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Anr Versus Manju Jain 2010 (8) TMI 932 - Supreme Court • State of M.P .v. Hiralal (1996): Affirmed the presumption of service when sent by registered post, making it unnecessary to prove actual knowledge. • Krishna Kumar Gupta vs Manoj Kumar Sahu (2022): Reiterated that service is presumed to have been effected at the time of likely delivery unless proven otherwise. 5. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the records, it is observed and held as follows: 5.1 In the present case the order-in-original apparently was not dispatched by registered post. It was sent by speed post Ld. DR has relied upon section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA). Under the said section 37C, however, the order should have been sent by registered post. This section stands amended incorporati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistered post with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized agent, if any; (b) If the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other placer 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: (c) If the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a) and (b) by affixing a copy thereof, on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decision, order or issued such summons or notice Hon'ble High Court Mumbai, also in the case AMIDEV AGRO CARE PVT LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2012 (6) TMI 304 BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that Order is to be served on the assessee or his agent by Registered Post A.D. or any other mode specified in section 37C and mere proof of dispatch of order is not sufficient compliance of the section. Otherwise also it is not merely the dispatch of process through Registered post with AD but the affixation if there is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot valid. It is worth mentioning that section 37C has been made applicable to service tax also by virtue of section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the principle laid down in the judgment shall mutatis mutandis apply to notice served in service tax cases also. 5.5 In Jay Balaji Jyoti Steels Ltd. v. Cestat, Kolkata (2015 (1) TMI 859-ORISSA HIGH COURT where order was sent by speed post, it was held that post office issues receipt for both by registered post and by speed post. Hence, both have to be treated as registered post in view of section 28 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Only difference between the two is that charges payable are normally higher for 'speed post' for delivery at any early date. Further, insertion of 'or by speed post with proof of delivery' after the words 'sending it by registered post with acknowledgement due' in section 37C(1)(a) of Central Excise Act 1944 we.f. 10.05.2013 is clarificatory and procedural amendment. It is curative since various courts had held that communication of notices through speed post was in consonance with law. 5.6 We also observe the chronology of events to be as follows: Revised Date Events Sr. No. Date Par....