Service of Order via Speed Post Without Proof of Delivery is Invalid Under Section 37C.

The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that an Order-in-Original dated 30th May, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, was never served upon him.

Due to this non-service, the petitioner claimed he was unable to exercise his statutory right to appeal and approached the High Court seeking relief.

The Court previously directed respondent no.3 to file an affidavit disclosing the mode of service.

The respondent’s report claimed service via Speed Post but failed to produce a consignment track report or proof of delivery.

1. Whether the respondent-authority complied with the mandatory statutory requirements for service of orders as prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994 and Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Whether the lack of proof of delivery entitles the petitioner to a fresh service of the order and the lifting of consequential attachment orders.

The court applied Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Section 37C(1)(a) mandates that service must be effected by tendering the decision or sending it by registered post with acknowledgement due, or by speed post with proof of delivery, or by an approved courier.

Sub-sections (b) and (c) provide secondary modes of service (affixation) only if service under clause (a) cannot be achieved.

Service is deemed complete under Section 37C(2) only when the document is tendered or delivered by post.

The Court observed that while the respondent claimed to have sent the order via Speed Post, they failed to produce the "acknowledgement due" or "track consignment report/proof of delivery" required by Section 37C.

The Court held that in the absence of such proof, the contention of the respondent regarding successful service could not be accepted.

Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of the doubt to the petitioner, reasoning that the statutory requirement for "proof of delivery" is a prerequisite to deeming service as complete.

Since service was not legally established, the subsequent actions taken by the authorities, such as bank account attachments for non-compliance with the unserved order, were deemed premature.

The respondent no.3 was directed to serve a copy of the Order-in-Original to the petitioner or his advocate within a fortnight.

The Court ordered that any attachment of bank accounts or orders made for non-compliance with the original order dated 30th May, 2023, stand automatically quashed and released.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.