DHANALAKSHMI STEELS Vs. CESTAT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the appeal came up for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both sides, the appeal was taken up for final hearing.

(2.) Whether the service of adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on daughter-in-law of the Managing Partner of the appellant firm is a valid service in accordance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the short point falling for our consideration.

(3.) The brief facts are that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) passed the order on 23-9-2004 confirming the demand of Rs. 38,05,313/- under Rule 96(ZP) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 r/w Section 38A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period from April, 1998 to March, 1999 and April, 1999 to March, 2000 together with interest and also imposing penalty of equal amount and the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise was communicated by registered post on 7-10-2004 and the order was received by daughter-in-law of Mr. R. Ranganathan, Managing Partner of the appellant firm. The period of limitation is to be computed from 7-10-2004.