2003 (9) TMI 616 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals dismissed for exceeding time limit based on order affixing date.

The appeals challenging the rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to exceeding the limitation period were dismissed. The court held that the period ... Limitation period for filing appeal - service by affixing on factory gate - deemed service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act - power to condone delayLimitation period for filing appeal - power to condone delay - The appeals were barred by limitation and the Commissioner (Appeals) could not condone the delay. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the appeals were filed well beyond the normal limitation period and the permissible period for condonation had also expired. Reliance was placed on the settled principle that statutory appellate authorities cannot entertain appeals filed beyond the period prescribed by the statute and that the statutory scheme prescribes the time-limit and any condonation. Given that the appeals were instituted after a gap of over three years from the date when the order was effectively served, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to extend time and entertain the belated appeals. Accordingly, the rejection of the appeals on the ground of limitation was upheld. [Paras 4, 5]Appeals dismissed as time-barred; Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the appeals and had no power to condone the delay.Service by affixing on factory gate - deemed service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act - Affixing a copy of the adjudication order on the factory gate constituted valid service and the period of limitation ran from that event. - HELD THAT: - The appellant contended that service was ineffective because the factory had been taken over by SIDBI and the adjudication order was only pasted on the factory, so limitation should run from the date the appellant obtained a copy. The Tribunal rejected this contention, observing that service had been effected by a mode recognised in law-affixing the copy on the factory gate-and that Section 37C contemplates deemed service by affixing on an appropriate notice board or place. Further, during the period when management was with SIDBI there was no requirement to effect separate service on the present appellant. Consequently, the date of affixing governed the commencement of the limitation period. [Paras 2, 5]Service by affixing on the factory gate was valid; limitation ran from the date of affixment and not from later receipt of a copy by the appellant.Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected as barred by limitation; service by affixing the order on the factory gate was held to be valid under the statutory scheme, and the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly refused to condone the delay. Issues:- Appeal against order rejecting appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation.- Contention regarding the period of limitation counted from the date of obtaining the copy of the order.- Lack of appearance by the appellant despite notice.- Statutory authorities' inability to entertain appeals filed beyond the permitted period.- Service of order by affixing on the factory gate.- Complaint that the copy of the order was not served on the present appellant.Analysis:The judgment revolves around two appeals challenging the rejection of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to exceeding the limitation period. The appellant argued that the period of limitation should commence from obtaining the copy of the order, not from the date of pasting it on the factory gate. Despite notice issuance, the appellant did not appear, leading to the disposal of the appeals after hearing the learned SDR.The learned SDR contended that statutory authorities cannot entertain appeals filed beyond the permitted period, citing legal precedents. The period for condonation of delay was already lapsed before filing the appeals. Emphasizing that the order was affixed on the factory gate, the SDR pointed out that Section 37C of the Central Excise Act allows such affixing to fulfill the service requirement, thus rejecting the appellant's argument of non-service.The judgment highlighted that the service method, i.e., affixing on the factory gate, was legally recognized. Additionally, since the company management was under SIDBI during the relevant period, serving the notice on the present appellant was unnecessary. Consequently, the appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the time limit, and the law did not authorize condoning the delay. Therefore, the order dismissing the appeals was deemed valid, leading to the failure and dismissal of the appeals.