Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Anand Agro Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 6 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(188)ELT175(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal was dismissed as time bar. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was a delay of 797 days in filing the appeal.
2. The contention of the appellant is that the adjudication order was passed on 25-9-2000 and the same was pasted at the factory premises of the appellant on 29-1-2001. The contention of the applicant is that as per the provisions of Section 37C(1) which provides the procedure for service of order. The contention of the applicant is that as per the provision of Section 37C of the Act, the order is to be served by registered by AD, and if the revenue is unable to serve through registered AD, then only, the method of pasting can be adopted. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order admitted the fact that the order was not served through registered AD hence the service of order is not valid. On 23-12-2002, the Range Office supplied another copy at the request of the appellant. The contention is that as the order was not served upon the appellant, hence the finding of the Commissioner that appeal is time-barred is not sustainable.
3. The contention of the revenue is that the order was pasted on 29-1-2001 at the factory of the appellant in the presence of two independent witnesses and panchnama was drawn hence appellant cannot say that the order was not served on 29-1-2001. Revenue has submitted that attested copy of the order was supplied to the appellant on 23-12-2002 on the request made.
4. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-bar on the ground that there was delay of 797 days in filing the appeal. The appellant also raised contention that Section 37C(1) of the Central Excise Act provides that first order should be served to the appellant by registered AD, thereafter, it can be pasted at the factory premises. We find that this issue came before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sha Moolchand Praopchandji Gandhi v. C.C. (Airport), Chennai - . The Hon'ble Madras High Court held that the provision of the Customs Act does not show any priority in which any order of decision of summons or notice issued under the Customs Act, 1962, must be served. The Hon'ble Madras High Court held that mode of service as provided under the Act is alternative. In other words, serving authority can adopt any one of the modes prescribed therein. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that order was not served as per the provision of the Act. The Order was pasted at the factory premises on 29-1-2001 in the presence of two witnesses and a panchnama was drawn to that effect. In these circumstances, we find no force in the appellant's contention that the order was not served upon by way of pasting on 29-1-2001. In these circumstances we find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)