Does Section 37C of the Customs Act require service of an order by registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due?
Customs Act, 1962 — s.37C — Limitation Act, 1963 — s.4 — Service of appellate order — Speed post with acknowledgement due — Document Identification Number — Limitation for appeal — Sunday — Remand —
Customs Act, 1962 — s.37C — Mode of service — Acknowledgement due —
Held: Section 37C requires service of an order by registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due. Dispatch by speed post without seeking acknowledgement is contrary to it, so the date the assessee received a copy on enquiry is the date of service. (¶11, 12)
Document Identification Number — Authentication, not service —
Held further: A Document Identification Number on an appellate order means nothing more than authentication of the order, and no inference about its service can be drawn from it absent evidence of electronic service or upload. (¶9, 10)
Limitation Act, 1963 — s.4 — Period ending on Sunday —
Held further: An appeal whose period ended on a Sunday and was instituted on the next working day is maintainable. CESTAT orders dismissing the appeals as time-barred quashed; appeals allowed and matters remanded to the first appellate authority. (¶13, 14, 15)
Does Section 37C of the Customs Act require service of an order by registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due?
Yes. Section 37C of the Customs Act requires service of an order by registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due. The information officer's reply showed only that the appellate order had been dispatched by speed post, with no acknowledgement sought, which the Court held contrary to the procedure in Section 37C. The date the appellant obtained a copy on enquiry was therefore taken as the date of service, and the second appeals filed within time from that date were within limitation. [¶11, ¶12]
Is a Document Identification Number on an appellate order nothing more than an authentication of the order, not evidence of its service?
Yes. A Document Identification Number on an appellate order is nothing more than an authentication of the order, not evidence of its service. The Revenue argued that because a DIN had been issued the order must have been uploaded and the assessee should have taken a copy from the portal. The Court declined to infer service from the DIN, noting that no evidence was produced of electronic service or upload. [¶6, ¶9, ¶10]
Is an appeal instituted on the first working day after a limitation period ending on a Sunday maintainable under Section 4 of the Limitation Act?
Yes. An appeal instituted on the first working day after a limitation period ending on a Sunday is maintainable under Section 4 of the Limitation Act. The first appeals were due on a Sunday and were filed the next day; applying Section 4 and drawing support from the Uttarakhand High Court in Sai Auto Industries, the Court held them maintainable. [¶13]
What did the High Court finally decide on the appeals dismissed as time-barred?
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were allowed. The CESTAT orders dismissing the appeals as barred by limitation were quashed, and since the assessee had not been heard on merits at either appellate stage, the matters were remanded to the first appellate authority for adjudication in accordance with law. No costs. [¶12, ¶14, ¶15]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“10. The fact that a DIN features in the appellate order means nothing than an authentication of the order, and we cannot infer anything about service of the order from this, as Mr.Raghavan would ask us to.”
“11. On the contrary, Section 37C of the Customs Act requires service of an order or notice by way of either registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due. In its application filed before the appropriate authority under the Right to Information Act seeking details of the service of the appeal order, the Central Public Information Officer has replied saying that the order-in- appeal had been dispatched through speed post. There is no mention of an acknowledgement having been sought and the procedure followed is thus contrary to that stipulated under Section 37C.”
“12. In light of the aforesaid narration, we conclude that the date of service of the first appellate order should be taken to be 31.03.2025 only. The institution of the appeals on 03.06.2025 is within time. The dismissal of the appeals by the CESTAT as barred by limitation is incorrect and those orders are quashed.”
“13. As far as the appeals before the first appellate authority are concerned, we have noted that 29.05.2022 fell on a Sunday. Hence, by application of the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, and drawing support from the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in Sai Auto Industries vs. the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Others [2026 (3) TMI 1631], we are of the considered view that the appeals, instituted on the first working day thereafter, being 30.03.2022, are to be taken as maintainable.”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
This is a batch of nine appeals filed by the appellant challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (CESTAT) on 27.11.2025 holding the appeals to be defective as barred by limitation.
2.1. The facts arise in the following manner:
2.2. Show cause notices were issued by the Department, and the details of the periods, and dates of notices and orders-in-original are set out in the following tabulation: S.No. Financial Year Show Cause Notice / Statement of Demand Order-in-Original 1. 04.2013 – 05.2014 36/2016 dated 20.05.2016 2/2021 dated 30.11.2021 2. 06.2015 – 12.2015 45/2016 dated 29.06.2016 3/2021 dated 30.11.2021 3. 09.2012 – 06.2013 IV/09/80/2013-adj dated 30.09.2013 4/2021 dated 30.11.2021 4. 02.2012 – 07.2012 IV/09/17/2013-adj dated 28.02.2013 5/2021 dated 30.11.2021 5. 07.2013 – 05.2014 SOD No.11/2014 dated 16.07.2014 6/2021 dated 30.11.2021 6. 07.2014 – 05.2015 SOD No.06/2015 dated 07.07.2015 7/2021 dated 30.11.2021 7. 01.2016 – 12.2016 SOD No.01/2018 dated 23.01.2018 8/2021 dated 30.11.2021 8. 08.2012 – 06.2013 SCN No.51/2013 dated 05.09.2013 72-73/2021 dated 20.01.2022 9. 07.2013 – 05.2014 SOD No.64/2014 dated 24.07.2014
2.3. As against the above orders-in-original, first appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). The date of institution of appeals was 30.05.2022. The appellant took the benefit of extension of time granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order passed in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2022 (1) TMI 385].
2.4. To be noted, that 29.05.2022 happened to be a Sunday, and hence the appeals came to be filed on 30.05.2022.
2.5. The appeals were rejected by the first appellate authority on the ground that no relaxation in time could have been given beyond the period fixed either under the statute or by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.
2.6. The orders-in-original are dated 30.11.2021 and 20.01.22. The undisputed position is that personal hearing in the appeals had been conducted on 23.01.2023. No orders had been received and on enquiry with the Registry of the Appellate Commissioner by the assessee on 23.01.2025, a copy of order dated 07.03.2023 rejecting the appeals had been furnished to the appellant on 31.03.2025.
2.7. A second appeal was instituted before the CESTAT on 03.06.2025 within the statutory time limit, and reckoning the date of service to be 31.03.2025.
2.8. Though the appellant was of the view that there was no delay in instituting the appeal in the above circumstances, a petition for condonation of delay was filed computing the delay from the date of order, on the insistence of the CESTAT Registry.
2.9. The appeals have been dismissed as belated as against which, the present appeals have been filed.
The following substantial question of law has been admitted by this Court on 24.08.2026:
“In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, whether Impugned Order is correct in dismissing the COD Application and the Appeal filed by the Appellant when sufficient cause for the delay was explained?”
Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, simply relies on the sequence of dates and events as set out above, to bring home the point that there has been no delay in institution of either first or second appeals. He prays that the matters may hence be relegated to the file of the first appellate authority for adjudication on merits.
He would also submit that the reasoning of the CESTAT regarding service of orders is erroneous, since the statutory provisions require the appellate orders to have been served on the assessee via speed post with acknowledgment due, which has not been done in the present case.
Per contra, Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, relies on the order of the CESTAT. He would also point out that a Document Identification Number (DIN) has been issued qua the appellate order and hence, it is clear that the said order had been uploaded in the portal. Hence, the assessee ought to have secured a copy of the order from the portal instead of waiting for service of the same by post.
We have heard both learned counsel and perused the material papers.
The facts and the dates are admitted and we recapitulate the same briefly, in the interest of a cogent narration. Orders-in-original were passed in respect of the nine periods, as set out in the tabulation at paragraph 2.2, on 30.11.2021 and 20.01.2022. The assessee filed first appeals and personal hearing was afforded on 07.03.2023. No orders were received till 2025 and on enquiry with the office of the first appellate authority, a copy of the appellate order was received on 31.03.2025. The appellant has taken the aforesaid date to be the date of service, and appeals were filed before the CESTAT within the statutory time limit, on 03.06.2025.
Though it is the case of the Revenue that the order has been uploaded in the portal, Mr.Ramabadran states that the submission is factually incorrect as such a practice is not followed in respect of orders under the Customs Act. Mr.Raghavan for his part does not produce any evidence to support his claim that the order has been served electronically/uploaded.
The fact that a DIN features in the appellate order means nothing than an authentication of the order, and we cannot infer anything about service of the order from this, as Mr.Raghavan would ask us to.
On the contrary, Section 37C of the Customs Act requires service of an order or notice by way of either registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due. In its application filed before the appropriate authority under the Right to Information Act seeking details of the service of the appeal order, the Central Public Information Officer has replied saying that the order-in- appeal had been dispatched through speed post. There is no mention of an acknowledgement having been sought and the procedure followed is thus contrary to that stipulated under Section 37C.
In light of the aforesaid narration, we conclude that the date of service of the first appellate order should be taken to be 31.03.2025 only. The institution of the appeals on 03.06.2025 is within time. The dismissal of the appeals by the CESTAT as barred by limitation is incorrect and those orders are quashed.
As far as the appeals before the first appellate authority are concerned, we have noted that 29.05.2022 fell on a Sunday. Hence, by application of the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, and drawing support from the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in Sai Auto Industries vs. the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Others [2026 (3) TMI 1631], we are of the considered view that the appeals, instituted on the first working day thereafter, being 30.03.2022, are to be taken as maintainable.
Since the assessee has not been heard on merits either at the stage of first or second appeal, while quashing the impugned orders of the CESTAT, we remand the matters to the file of the first appellate authority for adjudication in accordance with law.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.R.K.,J.) 22-09-2026
Is non-payment of a part of the sale price a ground for cancellation of a registered Sale Deed once title has passed?
2020 INSC 450 · Supreme Court of India
Does the burden to prove that property is joint property of a Hindu Undivided Family lie on the person who alleges it?
2020 INSC 327 · Supreme Court of India
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy