TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals) is vested with the power to condone the delay of 30 days in addition to the statutory limit of 60 days as prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the appeal having been filed beyond the 90 days permissible, the same was dismissed on the ground of delay and affirmed by the CESTAT. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to note that the petitioner-company in the present case while being registered under the Service Tax law as envisaged under Finance Act, 1994 under the category of transport of goods by road service by virtue of Rule (2)(1) (d)(b) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, having not deposited the service tax including education cess and other cess was liable for demand of ₹ 7,54,752.00, on the allegation that, there has been willful suppression by the petitioner-company and consequently, contravention of the Act. The show cause demand notice was issued by Opposite Party No.3 dated 10.6.2010 calling upon the petitioner company to show cause. The petitioner-company filed a show cause and by order dated 12.7.2011 a demand of service tax, interest and penalty was raised. Thereafter, an appeal was moved by the petitioner compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid case. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner further asserted that, in fact, there was no delay caused in filing the appeal since the petitioner actually received the order-in-original issued by Opposite Party No.3 on 29.5.2012 i.e. the date of acknowledge of receipt of the order-in-original and the appeal was filed on 14.6.2012 within the statutory period prescribed under Section 30-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is further submitted that the clerk (employee of the petitioner-company) on whom the order passed by the adjudicated authority was served, had no authority to acknowledge receipt of the statutory order on behalf of the petitioner-company, for which, service of the impugned order also not lawful and proper and there has been no valid service of adjudication order on the petitioner-company. He, therefore, vehemently urged that when law prescribes a particular manner for doing a particular act and act must be done in that manner alone, other methods and modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. Relying on the above and various case laws cited he submitted that Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes the mode of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argeable under this Act, such further fee as may be fixed by the notification shall be paid on account of the registration of postal articles. It would be relevant also to take note of the fact that an amendment was brought into the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933, by a Gazette Notification issued by the Ministry of Communications (Department of Posts), Government of India dated 24th July, 1986 introducing Inland, Speed Post Service by inserting Rules 66-B thereto which is quoted hereunder: Rule 66-B. INLAND SPEED POST SERVICE.- Inland Postal articles may be booked after obtaining receipts therefor, at the places specified in column(1) of the Schedule below and the post offices specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Schedule for delivery under the Inland Speed Post Service subject to the following conditions namely: (1) Inland Speed Post Service shall be available in respect of all classes of mails, which can be sent by the registered service: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx In view of Section 28 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 read with Rule 66-B of Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 (as inserted vide Gazette Notification dated 24th July, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived speed post packet on behalf of the company, is a Class-IV employee Miss Bengi Oram, who was not authorized by the company to do so and consequently, the company had initiated a disciplinary against her. When such affidavit was filed, this Court directed vide its order dated 5.12.2014 calling upon the General Manager (Accounts) to file a further affidavit before this Court indicating as to whether the said Class-IV employee-Miss Bengi Oram had in the past ever received postal packages on behalf of the company or not. We also called upon Miss Bengi Oram to file an affidavit whether she had received earlier any postal packages on behalf of the company. After such order was passed, a further affidavit came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner-company through its General Manager, tendering an unconditional apology for filing additional affidavit dated 21.11.2014 without verifying the detail factual position and seeking indulgence of the Court to withdraw the said additional affidavit dated 21.11.2014. The aforesaid facts are merely being recorded to indicate the manner in which the petitioner-company has sought to try and pass the blame on an employee in order to try and ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble Supreme Court as noted hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the insertion of the words Speed Post under Section 37C)(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is clearly curative since various High Courts as quoted hereinabove had came to hold that communication of notices through speed post was in consonance with law . Further this amendment is purely explanatory since Section 28 of Indian Post Office Act, 1988 read with Rule 66-B of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1993 (as amended on 24th July 1986). In our considered view, the insertion of speed post within the scope and ambit with the registered post as mandatory thereunder. Consequently, the amending statute is held by us as clarificatory amendment and would have retrospective effect and, therefore, the argument to the contrary by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner hereby stands rejected. 13. In this respect, before concluding the matter, it would also to be most relevant to note herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra), came to hold that sufficient cause for explaining the delay is an expression which is found in various statute and it is essentially m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
