Service of order, decision, etc. [Section 153] :

The date of service of an order or a communication containing a decision is of vital importance, in case the aggrieved party desires to file an appeal. The time limit a llowed for appeal normally runs from the date of receipt of the communication containing the impugned decision by the aggrieved person. There are circumstances where it is not effectively possible to ensure that such communications are received by the concerned party. There are other circumstances where disputes arise about the actual date of the receipt of communication. These two problems have necessitated a uniform procedure for dispatch and service of orders, decisions, summons and other communications issued under the Customs Act. Section 153 provides the specific mode of service in this regard which is reproduced below.

Any order or decision passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act, shall be served–

(a) by tendering the order, decision, summons or notice or sending it by registered post or by such courier as may be approved by the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs; or

(b) if the order, decision, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing it on the notice board of the customs house.

This provision is identical to section 37C of the Central Excise Act, but with an important difference. Clause (b) of that section provides for service of notice by affixture on the wall or door of the residence or office of the noticee. However, under section 153, affixture on the notice board of the custom house is the last method of service. It is neither clear nor does it stand to reason, why there is no provision similar to section 37C(b) of the Central Excise Act.

Section 153 indicates that in giving notice under the Act, receipt by the addressee is not relevant. What is relevant is issuing of notice in any one of the manners provided in this section. Therefore, it follows that the show cause notice issued within the period of six months as stipulated under section 110 has been properly served [Ambali Karthikeyan vs. CC & CE 2000 (125) ELT 517 (Mad)]