Service of order — Whether sending of order by speed-post complies with the provision of section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act — Held: Order is to be served on the assessee or his agent by Registered Post A.D. or any other mode specified in section 37C ibid.

Service of order — Whether sending of order by speed-post complies with the provision of section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act — Held: Order is to be served on the assessee or his agent by Registered Post A.D. or any other mode specified in section 37C  ibid.

The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial question of law as to whether CESTAT was justified in holding that the pre-conditions of section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were complied with and therefore the appeal filed by the appellant was barred by limitation. The case of the assessee was that the copy of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 31st March, 2008 was not served upon them and only when the recovery proceedings were initiated, they obtained the copy of the order dated 31-3-2008 on 20-2- 2010 and thereupon filed an appeal before CESTAT within three months. Thus, it was contended that it was filed in time. CESTAT dismissed the appeal holding it to be time-barred on the ground that the copy of the order was dispatched on 1st April by speed-post and therefore it must have been received by the assessee in 2008. This complied with the requirement of section 37. Held: As per section 37C(1)(a) it was mandatory for the Revenue to serve a copy of the order by registered post with acknowledgement due to the assessee. Since in this case, the order was not sent by registered post but by speed-post, there was no evidence of tendering decision to the assessee. In the circumstances, the requirements of section 37C were not complied with. Further reliance by CESTAT on the decision of P&H High Court in Mohan Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. (2010) 255 ELT 321 was held incorrect as in that case, the order was sent by registered post. As such, the claim of the assessee that copy of the order was received for the first time on 26-2-2010 would have to be accepted.

Facts:

In both the cases, show-cause notices were issued imposing penalty for delayed payment of service tax in spite of the respondents paying the service tax along with interest before issuance of SCN. Held: It was held that no notice shall be served on the persons who have paid service tax along with interest. If notices are issued, the person to be punished is the person issuing such a notice and not the person to whom the notice was issued.