9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appeals were filed after the prescribed period and therefore were barred by time. 2. The appellants have contended that the primary adjudication orders claimed have to be sent by speed post were not received by them and when they received copies thereof, they filed the appeals within the prescribed period. They also contended that service by speed post is not in accordance with provisions of Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the appeals as time barred. They cited the following judgments in support of their contentions:- (i) Premier Garment Processing Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2015 (39) STR 812 (Mad.)]. (ii) New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmons, etc. - (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 authorized agent, if any:" Thus as per the said Section, the primary adjudication orders were required to be sent by RPAD. Bombay High Court in the case of Amidev Agro Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2012 (26) STR 229 (Bomb)], Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Best Dyeing [2012 (27) STR 97 (P&H)] and Madras High Court in the case of Premier Garments Processing Vs. CESTAT, Chennai (supra) have unequivocally hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be sent by RPAD, sending them by speed post would not fulfil the requirement of the said section. The amended provision of Section 37C(1)(a) ibid effective from 10.05.2013 allows sending of the orders by "speed post with proof of delivery". It is admitted by Revenue that in these cases, it has no proof of delivery of the primary adjudication orders. Thus in fact, even with the support of the judgements Allahabad High Court in the case of Mirzapur Electrical Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad (supra) and Orissa High Court in the case of Jay Balaji Jyoti Steels Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Kolkatta (supra), Revenue falls short of fulfilling the requirement of Section 37C(1)(a) ibid. Regarding Revenue's contention that the Orissa High Court judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
