February 19, 2026 : The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that an appeal cannot be dismissed as time-barred merely on the assumption that an order was served, when the Department fails to prove delivery as mandated under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
In Service Tax Appeal No. 70043 of 2026, titled M/s Jagmandeep Singh versus Commissioner, CGST, Noida, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had rejected the assessee’s appeal on limitation grounds. The decision was delivered on 18 February 2026 by Judicial Member P.K. Choudhary.
Background
The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 14 March 2024, holding that it was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Under this provision, an appeal must be filed within sixty days from the “date of communication” of the decision or order.
The Department contended that the Order-in-Original had been dispatched by Speed Post and, since it was not returned undelivered, it should be presumed to have been served. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this position.
However, the assessee maintained that the order was never received. According to the appellant, a copy of the Order-in-Original was supplied only on 9 August 2024 upon request, and the appeal was filed on 19 September 2024, well within sixty days from that date.
Tribunal’s Analysis
The Tribunal identified the core issue as whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period, which begins from the “date of communication.”
Referring to Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, the Bench emphasized that service of decisions or orders must be effected by tendering the order, or by sending it through registered post with acknowledgment due, Speed Post with proof of delivery, or an approved courier.
The Tribunal made it clear that the initial burden lies on the Revenue to demonstrate that service was carried out strictly in accordance with the statutory mandate. Only after such proof is produced does the burden shift to the assessee.
In the present case, the Department failed to produce any acknowledgment card, tracking report showing delivery, or any other documentary proof establishing that the order dated 14 March 2024 had been delivered before 9 August 2024. Mere dispatch through Speed Post, coupled with non-return of the postal article, was held to be insufficient.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, which underscores that when a statute prescribes a specific mode of service, it must be followed strictly. The Apex Court has held that service must be effected on the concerned person or his authorized agent, and failure to comply with the prescribed method vitiates any presumption of service.
Applying this principle, the Tribunal held that in the absence of proof of delivery as required under Section 37C, the presumption of valid service was unsustainable.
Decision
Accepting the assessee’s contention, the Tribunal treated 9 August 2024 as the date of communication of the Order-in-Original. Consequently, the appeal filed on 19 September 2024 was within the statutory sixty-day period.
The impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 28 May 2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits, without revisiting the issue of limitation. All issues were kept open. The appellant was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Case Reference : M/s Jagmandeep Singh vs Commissioner, CGST, Noida
