2026-VIL-1288-CESTAT-CHE-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Service of Order – Appellant received a communication from the Range Officer demanding payment of arrears but did not receive the actual Orders-in-Original regarding clearances made without following prescribed procedures - The Appellate Authority rejected the appeals as time barred, holding that they were filed beyond the statutory time limit of 60 days from the date of communication of orders - Whether appeals filed beyond the statutory time limit are barred by limitation when the orders have not been properly served on the appellant - HELD - Whenever an order is passed to the detriment of an assessee, the department is duty bound to ensure that such order has been properly served on the affected assessee so as to put the assessee to notice and enable the assessee to initiate requisite action to contest the same - Service of notice should be in a manner that is meaningful and realistic and it would be an anathema in law to decide a matter without due notice to the concerned party - The Appellate Authority merely stated that one order was dispatched and was not returned and that the second order was dispatched by registered post but no evidence of such proof of dispatch, receipt by the appellant, or dated acknowledgment has been relied upon - No statutory proof of service as prescribed under Section 37C of the Act is available on record - Since the appellant upon receipt of the order filed the appeals in time, the appeals are not barred by limitation - The impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Appellate Authority to hear the appeals on merits - The appeals are allowed by way of remand

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page