75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

November 2011

(2011) 23 STR 582 (All.) Triveni Glass Ltd. v. CCEx., Allahabad.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Improper service of summons/decisions/orders — The provisions to be construed strictly in relation to the rights of the remedy.

Facts
The appellant claimed that the order was not served on them. The only proof of service available with the respondent was a noting made by an employee of the Department. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal did not notice the discrepancy in the number of the order which had been served, nor did they provide any clarification regarding the same. The Department failed to prove that they had served the order as per the provisions of section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Held
The respondent failed to serve the order as per the provisions of the law. As a result, the claim of the appellant was held valid and thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to hear the appeal on merits. When the matter arises as to the right of a party in the form of extinguishment of remedy of an appeal, then such provision has to be interpreted strictly even if the same is procedural.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Penalty u/s.61(2) for late filing of VAT Audit Report vis-à-vis discretion of the authorities

(2011) 23 STR 444 (Kar.) — CCEx. Bangalore- III v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd.