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

September 2012

2012 (27) STR 97 (P & H) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Best Dyeing.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Condonation of delay 190 days – Service of order by improper mode Speed post – Revenue did not have any evidence of having served the order – Tribunal order condoning delay upheld.

Facts:
The order was dispatched by Speed Post which was not returned. However, the respondent did not receive the same. Therefore, respondent preferred an appeal after a delay of 190 days before CESTAT. The Tribunal condoned the delay and the same was challenged by the Revenue before the Honourable High Court.

Held:
The mode of serving order has been prescribed by Section 37C which does not contemplate serving order by speed post. The order passed must be served by registered post with an acknowledgement due. Moreover, the Tribunal had already held that the Revenue has no evidence of having served the order. In view of the same, it was held by the Court that delay of 190 days had rightly been condoned by the Tribunal. Moreover, the Court viewed department’s approach seriously and also ordered for a cost of Rs. 5,000 and the same was ordered to be deducted from the salary of the employee who had advised for filing the appeal.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2012 (27) STR 5 (Kar.) Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore v. LSG Sky Chef Pvt. Ltd.

2012 (27) STR 94 (P & H) V.G. Steel Industry v. Commissioner of Central Excise.