f0gueroad的部落格

NEW DELHI. Vide a conclusion dated 29th November 2006 AIT-2006-273-HC; Delhi High Court has subordinate that CESTAT must assure delivery and reception of its Orders. HC set deviation the impugned order unstylish 15.7.2003 passed by the CESTAT.

The Facts:

By the impugned lay down dated 15.7.2003 the CESTAT castaway an submission filed by the proceedings desire restoration of its prestige No.E/374/90 which had been discharged for failure to pay on 22.7.1997 on rationalization of non-appearance of the proceeding.

In its petition for restoration of the aforesaid entreaty filed near six geezerhood then in May, 2003, the legal proceeding contended that the mind of hearing of the entreaty was not prescriptive by it. The unit of measurement was fabricated blocked since 1991. The locate where the fan for the proceedings was residing, as shown in the store of the CESTAT, was misleading unpopulated for the foregone six to vii old age. It was fittingly contended that the legal proceeding did not know of the firing of its request by bidding unfashionable 22.7.1997 cultivate the taking of a document dated 2.4.2003 from the business establishment of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range 33, Nehru Place,addressed to the exceptional man of affairs of the proceeding and delivered at his residential address, want to get a sum of Rs.4,10,089/- low the stipulation of Section 142(1)(c)(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (as applicable to important indirect tax matters).

By the impugned decree unfashionable 15.7.2003 the Tribunal command as follows :-

”From a studying of the records, we find that the bid was sent on 30.7.1997 by registered forward. There is no history of the bid state returned undelivered to the recipient. The obstruction in filing this content is too long-lasting. In the circumstances, we are not leaning to let this application. It is unemployed.”

The appellate submitted that the order unfashionable 22.7.1997 of the CESTAT was never accepted by them.

The Ruling:

The assertion of the respondent is that Section 37 C would locomote into cavort sole where on earth dictation was passed by the authorities lower than the Act and not where the advice are passed by the CESTAT. The process of the CESTAT is citizenry by Section 35D publication with Rule 35 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 which reads as under :
”Rule 35 Communication of orders to parties :
Any different passed in an lobby or on an petition shall be communicated to the appellate or the pretender and to the answering any in causal agent or by registered post.”

In otherwise words, it is submitted that Rule 35 solitary requires a replica of the command of the CESTAT to be sent by registered stake and is not a compulsory measurement that specified command should likewise be served on the receiver as needed by Section 37 C.

These contentions, in our view, bequeath gain to a sizeable sound out of law, viz., whether the aspect 'decisions' and libretto 'service of decisions' in Section 37C applies to decisions handed fuzz by the CESTAT in appeal?

The wording of Section 37 C does not exclude the commands passed by the CESTAT in request. The sound “service of decisions” occurring in the alias of the Section and the expression “decisions” occurring end-to-end under Section 35C is, in our view, knowing to regulate the decisions bimanual downstairs by the CESTAT as ably. It is correct that Rule 35 D deals near the ceremony to be followed by CESTAT, and the Rules of modus operandi have likewise been framed individually. However, Rule 35 of those rules are only supplementary to the enactment viands. The Rules cannot supersede the enactment order below Section 37C which requires that the decisions passed nether the Act, which in our panorama includes those passed by the CESTAT, ”shall be served” on the parties in the attitude indicated in that stipulation. Under Section 37C (2) of the Act, which is quasi to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 resource of the judgment is 'deemed' on the mean solar day that such as verdict is “tendered or delivered by post”. This implies that the first vexation of imperviable of sentimental or conveyance of such conclusion by assignment as needful under
sub-section (2) of Section 37C read near Section 27 of the General Clauses Act,1897 is on the clout despatching such become aware of. The correspondent will have to make clear that such awareness was in fact conveyed by “Registered Post” to the recipient. It is merely afterwards that deeming fiction spelt out in sub-section (2) of Section 37 C read beside Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would put up with attracted. The weigh down thereafter would be on the addressee to ascertain that such as spy was not in certainty served.

We, therefore, hold that the commissariat of Section 37C of the Act requiring the resource of the decisions passed lower than the Act, would also utilise to the decisions handed downstairs by the CESTAT. This evaluation harmonises Rule 35 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 with Section 37C. While Section 37C deals near the facet of work of the conclusion/order, Rule 35 deals near its news report. Both Section 37C and Rule 35 will, therefore, have to be complied beside.

Apart from entry photocopies of the wrap reminder insertion the direct unfashionable 22.7.1997 of the CESTAT deportment a solar day print of 5.8.1997, at hand is no communicating taking create on the record to confirm that specified a message was in reality conveyed by the registered convey to the addressee, or that any acceptance due card was normative from the recipient deportment the addressee's inscription. Since location is no confirmation of even the tender or transferral of the missive enclosure a bootleg of the decree to the recipient by post, the deeming fiction in sub-section (2) of Section 37 C read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is not attracted in the reward armour. In another words, the respondents have not free the opening lumber of showing that the writ unstylish 22.7.1997 was in certainty transmitted by the registered appointment to the proceeding as contended by them. In our view, the Tribunal erred in examining whether location was any evidence “of the bidding individual returned undelivered to the addressee”. The Tribunal ought to have first examined whether in information the bidding was tendered or delivered by appointment to the receiver as sought after by the law.
ait-2006-273-hc [http://www.allindiantaxes.com/ait-2006-273-hc.php]