9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant firm is a valid service in accordance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the short point falling for our consideration. 3. The brief facts are that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) passed the order on 23-9-2004 confirming the demand of Rs. 38,05,313/- under Rule 96(ZP) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 r/w Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from April, 1998 to March, 1999 and April, 1999 to March, 2000 together with interest and also imposing penalty of equal amount and the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise was communicated by registered post on 7-10-2004 and the order was received by daughter-in-law of Mr. R. Ranganathan, Managing Partner of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the performance of an act viz., the mode of service of order, notice, summons etc., such act viz., service of order, notice, summons etc., ought to be performed only in that manner and in no other manner? (iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal stands vitiated for failing to take into account the relevant factor viz., Mrs. Thilagavathy is not an authorised agent of the appellant firm and thus the service is bad and invalid? 6. We have heard Mr. G.R.M. Palaniappan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the Tribunal stands vitiated for deciding that the service on the daughter-in-law of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t firm. It is also not in dispute that notice has been served in the correct address of the Managing Partner and the appellant firm cannot raise the plea of non-service of notice. Even though the expressions used in Section 37C(1)(a) are "the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent", in our considered view, the order having been served in the correct address is a valid service of notice in accordance with Section 37C. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Sakari Sangh Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [(1987) 066 STC 0024], which arose under Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules and contended that notice served upon the member of a family cannot be said t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [(1977) 039 STC 0531], which again arose under Rule 77 of U.P. Sales Tax Rules. In the said case, notice was served upon the servant. In such circumstances, the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court took the view to hold that the service of notice on a servant is sufficient compliance of Rule 77 of U.P. Sales Tax Rules would be to obliterate the distinction in law which exists between a servant and an agent. 13. In the case on hand, the order was served upon the daughter-in-law of the Managing Partner even on 7-10-2004. According to the appellant, the order copy was received only on 6-12-2007. Absolutely there is no explanation to show as to when the appellant firm got the information as to the serving of the order and as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
