- (1.) HEARD Shri A.P. Mathur for the appellant. Shri Vinod Kant Srivastava, senior standing counsel, Indirect -tax Department, (Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax), Government of India appears for the respondent. This Central excise appeal arises out of a final order dated September 3, 2012 issued on September 17, 2012 passed by the Member -Judicial, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by which he has rejected Excise Appeals Nos. 2806 and 2807 of 2010 -SM arising out of Order -in -Appeals Nos. 72 and 73, dated June 10, 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad.
(2.) THE CESTAT rejected the appeal as barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also rejected the appeal as barred by time. The order -in -original was passed on September 28, 2007. A copy of the order was sent to the appellant under registered cover. It was submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the order was not served upon the appellant. The Revenue resorted to the provisions of section 37C(1b) of the Central Excise Act (in short, "the Act") by pasting the order on the factory gate on December 5, 2007. The appellant stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that he came to know about the said order on or around December 26, 2007 and addressed a letter on the same day on December 26, 2007 for supplying of certified copy of the order. The appeal was thereafter filed on September 10, 2008. It was held to be barred by limitation.
(3.) IT was contended before the CESTAT, that the order -in -original was not sent by registered post. It was sent only by speed post, which is not the method prescribed in law of serving the decision in terms of section 37C of the Act. The order was received back undelivered with the remarks "no firm in the same name exists, hence returned". The service, it was alleged in such circumstances, could not be held to be sufficient in terms of the provisions of section 37C of the Act.;