Email is not a recognized mode of service under the Finance Act, 1994 and Central Excise Act, 1944.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated May 30, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994

The petitioner claimed he could not exercise his right to an administrative appeal because the order was never served upon him

The respondent (Revenue) filed an affidavit asserting that the order was sent via Speed Post and Electronic Mail

the respondent failed to produce a consignment track report, acknowledgment due, or proof of delivery for the postal service

1. Whether the service of the order-in-original via Electronic Mail constitutes valid service under the Finance Act, 1994

2. Whether the respondent successfully proved service of the order via Speed Post in accordance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944

The Court applied Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, which incorporates Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the "Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc."

This provision mandates that service must be effected by (a) tendering the document or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due or by speed post with proof of delivery; (b) if (a) fails, by affixation on the conspicuous part of the business/residence; or (c) by affixation on the authority's notice board

The rule establishes that service is deemed complete only upon actual delivery or tender by post/courier as specified

while the respondent claimed to have used Speed Post, the Court observed that Section 37C(1)(a) specifically requires "proof of delivery," which was absent since no consignment track report or acknowledgment was disclosed

the Court rejected the respondent's reliance on Electronic Mail, ruling that email is not a recognized mode of service under the Finance Act or the Central Excise Act

Because the statutory mandatory procedures for service were not strictly followed, the Court granted the "benefit of doubt" to the petitioner regarding the non-receipt of the order

the Court directed the respondent to serve a fresh copy of the order-in-original to the petitioner or his advocate within a fortnight

the Court ordered that any bank account attachments or recovery actions taken for non-compliance with the 2023 order are automatically quashed and must be released