Legal presumption of service exists when orders are sent to the registered address; failure to inform address changes can lead to dismissal of appeals as filed beyond limitations.

SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This matter has been heard on being remanded back by the Hon’ble High Court vide Order dated 22.08.2025 in Central Excise Appeal No.33 of 2025.

2.1 The text of the said order is reproduced below:-

“1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. 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?"

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.”

2.2 The Order-In-Appeal and the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant on the ground that the same has been filed much beyond the period of limitation and also beyond the period which could have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act (30 days).

2.3 After consideration of the facts, Tribunal had vide Final Order No.70256 of 2025 dated 02.05.2025 concluded that there was presumptive service as per Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the Appellant when the order was dispatched to be served upon the Appellant as per Section 37C and hence the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted with.

3.1 I have heard Ms. Stuti Saggi, Advocate and Shri S. P. Ojha, Consultant for the Appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Revenue.

3.2 Arguing for the Appellant, learned counsel emphasized that there was no proof of delivery as the address of the Appellant has changed. However, on query the counsel agreed that they had for the first time intimated the Adjudicating Authority about the change in their address vide Letter dated 11.08.2022 received on 17.08.2022.

3.3 Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned Order-In-Appeal and the order of the Tribunal.

4.1 I have considered the submissions made in light of the above order of the Hon’ble High Court. Before proceeding in the matter, I would like to produce the context of the letter dated 17.08.2022 filed by the Appellant intimating change of the address and also the affidavit filed by them before the Commissioner (Appeals).

4.2 From the perusal of the above affidavit and letter dated 11.08.2022, it is evident that the Appellant was in possession of the said premises till 30.09.2020.

4.3 Appel