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 of limitation should start from the date of affixing the order on the factory gate, not from obtaining a copy. Despite notice, the appellant did not appear, and the appeals were disposed of. The statutory authorities cannot entertain appeals filed beyond the permitted period, and the time for condonation of delay had lapsed. The method of service by affixing on the factory gate was deemed valid, and the appeals were dismissed for exceeding the time limit.

---

---

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.

---