Tribunal dismisses appeal due to time-barred filing beyond limitation period. Evidence lacked for condonation.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred due to a significant delay of over five years in filing beyond the limitation period. The appellants failed to provide evidence of registration cancellation in 1997 and did not specify an alternate address for correspondence. Despite the appellant's claim of late receipt of the Order-in-Original in 2005, the Department confirmed delivery in 2000, acknowledged by the appellants. The Tribunal found the appeal ineligible for condonation under the Central Excise Act, resulting in its rejection.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-Original is time-barred or not.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that they had closed their mill in 1997, transferring possession to another entity, and only re-registered with the Central Excise Department in 2005. They claimed the Order-in-Original was not delivered to them, and they received it on 30-12-2005. The appellant submitted an Affidavit and other documents to support their claim of receiving the order late. However, the Department confirmed delivery of the order to the appellants on 1-11-2000, which was acknowledged by them through the Range Office. The record indicated a delay of over five years in filing the appeal beyond the limitation period. The proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act allows condonation of a delay up to 30 days beyond 60 days if sufficient cause is shown to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found the appeal to be time-barred, upholding the Commissioner's decision to dismiss it. The appeal was rejected based on the delay in filing.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants had applied for registration cancellation in 1997 but failed to provide evidence of when the registration was actually canceled by the Department. Additionally, no alternate address was given for future correspondence. On the other hand, the Department confirmed delivering the order to the appellants in 2000, which was acknowledged by them. The Tribunal found that the order was served on the appellants in a timely manner, as evidenced by the acknowledgment on the order itself. The Range Office also confirmed this delivery in 2005. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was time-barred due to the significant delay in filing, which exceeded the permissible limit for condonation under the Central Excise Act. The decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred was upheld, and the appeal was rejected based on these findings.

---