Sending order-in-original through Speed Post is not proper service
THE Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal filed on the ground of limitation inasmuch as the appeal had been filed with a delay of one year and 11 months and 5 days. He had inter alia held that the order was despatched and communicated to the appellant through Speed Post.
The appellant says that as per the information obtained by them under the RTI Act, 2005, they have come to know that the O-in-O had been sent by Speed Post, the address was incomplete and even the Pin code number was wrong.
The CESTAT observed –
"4. It is admitted fact in the impugned order itself that the address was incomplete and pin code was also wrong and moreover, service of order through speed post is not the proper service. Therefore, we hold that the Order-in-Original was not served on the appellant as found by the first appellate authority in the impugned order. Accordingly, we hold that appeal filed by the appellant is within time before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand to the first appellate authority to hear the appellant afresh on merits.”
DDT adds - Incidentally, by the Finance Act, 2013, amendments have been made in section 37C of the CEA, 1944 so as to incorporate the words "speed post with proof of delivery". But the case under discussion is a Customs case and in section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 no such amendment has been made.