Service of Excise Adjudication Order through Post Disputed: Supreme Court dismisses Case lacking Grounds to Interfere [Read Order]

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition which challenged the review order of the Allahabad High Court regarding the service of an excise adjudication order purportedly delivered through speed post.

The petitioner had approached the High Court contending that the original adjudication order dated 28.01.2022 was not properly served as required under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The petitioner claimed that the order was received by an unrelated person named “Prabhat” and not by the petitioner or any authorized representative. It was argued that this irregularity rendered the service invalid and warranted fresh service of the order.

However, the High Court, in its judgment dated 02.12.2024, rejected the claim, noting several inconsistencies. The Court observed that the petitioner, despite alleging non-receipt, had specific details such as the speed post number and delivery date, which indicated otherwise.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

The High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, found that the petitioner was “seeking to hide more than what is being projected” and was apparently attempting to delay or circumvent the limitation period for appeal.

The Court held that mere denial of receipt is insufficient when the postal article is shown to have been delivered at the registered address and not returned undelivered. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court remarked that the plea lacked substance but clarified that the petitioner may apply for a certified copy in accordance with law if required.

The petitioner thereafter sought relief before the Supreme Court. On 15.07.2025, the Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the Special Leave Petition, observing that there was no ground to interfere.

The apex court said that “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), we see no ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates