M/S Rebecca Forex PVT. LTD. vs. Commisssioner Of CGST And Central Excise CGST
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Rebecca Forex Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appellant contended that the authorities below, including the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT, failed to examine whether the order dated September 28, 2021, was actually served upon them. It was an admitted position that the appellant's registered address had changed, and they only obtained a copy of the order on August 17, 2022. The orders of the CESTAT and Commissioner (Appeals) stated that the order in original was sent to the appellant's registered address on September 28, 2021, via post, but there was no proof of receipt. Furthermore, no finding was recorded regarding whether the appellant's registered address at the time of dispatch was the correct one.
Held
The Court held that the Tribunal, being the last fact-finding body, should have examined the matter in greater detail and arrived at a finding based on proper reasons. The Court found that this had not been done. Consequently, the Court held the question of law in favour of the appellant. The Court's reasoning was that the absence of proof of delivery and the admitted change in the appellant's registered address raised serious doubts about the proper service of the order. The ratio decidendi is that an order cannot be deemed served without proper proof of delivery, especially when the recipient's address may have changed, and the fact-finding authority must conduct a thorough inquiry into service. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to ascertain whether the appellant had been properly served with the order in original.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order of the Tribunal holding that the order dated 28.09.2021 stood served on the appellant, without any acknowledgement due or proof of delivery, is perverse and in violation of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sustainable in law? Appellant's Contention: The appellant argued that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT failed to examine the factual aspect of whether service was actually completed. They highlighted that their registered address had changed and that they only received a copy of the order on August 17, 2022. The appellant pointed out the lack of proof of delivery for the dispatch dated September 28, 2021, and the absence of a finding on whether the address used was the appellant's correct registered address at that time. Respondent's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise CGST).
Sections Cited
Section 35-G, Section 83, Section 37C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145042-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 33 of 2025 Appellant :- M/S Rebecca Forex Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Commisssioner Of Cgst And Central Excise Cgst Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Dhananjay Awasthi Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
This is an appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The question of law that has been admitted by us, is as follows:- "Whether the order of the Tribunal below holding that the order dated 28.09.2021 stood served on the appellant, without there being any acknowledgement due or proof of delivery available on record, is perverse, in violation of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act and sustainable in law?"
Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that both the authorities below, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, failed to examine the factual aspect as to whether actually service was completed upon the assessee or not. It is an admitted position that the assessee's registered address has changed and the assessee has sought for copy of the order from the authorities that was provided to the assessee on August 17, 2022. The order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) record that the order in original for service was sent to the appellant to its registered address vide dispatch dated September 28, 2021 through post but no where there is any proof whether such dispatch was actually received by the appellant. Furthermore, there is no finding as to whether the appellant's registered address during this period was the address at which the letter has been dispatched.
In our view, since the Tribunal is the last fact finding body, it should have examined the matter in greater detail and come to a finding based on proper reasons. The same having not been done, we hold the question of law in favour of the appellant and remand
the matter to the Tribunal to ascertain whether actually the appellant had been properly served with the order in original.
With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Rakesh (Praveen Kumar Giri J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) RAKESH MEHTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.