Limitation for appeals under Section 35 Central Excise Act upheld where registered-post service rendered appeal time barred

Whether an appeal was time barred under the Central Excise statutory limitation was decided by treating service by registered post as effective when dispatched; the order sent by registered post and not returned created a presumption of service, with the appellants' later knowledge and filing dates placing the appeal beyond the statutory maximum of 90 days (60 days plus 30 days condonation). The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly found no power to extend beyond that additional 30 days, and the dismissal on limitation grounds was sustained in favour of the revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act and whether the appeal was therefore barred by limitation.

Analysis: Section 35 prescribes that an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) must be presented within 60 days from the receipt of the Order-in-Original, with a discretionary extension of up to 30 further days (total maximum 90 days) if sufficient cause is shown. Section 37C permits service of orders by registered post with acknowledgement due. The record shows the Order-in-Original was sent by registered post to the appellants' address on 27-9-2002 and was not returned; the appellants do not assert they notified a change of address. The appellants became aware of the confirmed order by a letter dated 10-1-2003, requested a copy on 1-4-2003, received a copy on 9-4-2003, and filed the appeal on 14-5-2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the appeal was filed beyond the statutory maximum period of 90 days and dismissed it as time-barred. The factual findings that the order was sent by registered post, was not returned by postal authorities, and that a representative had obtained a copy from the Range office are uncontroverted. The statutory scheme does not permit condonation beyond the additional 30 days allowed under Section 35.

Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred and the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation is sustained. The decision is in favour of the revenue.

---