Tribunal allows appeal delay due to factory closure, rejects service on unauthorized consultant. Stay petition hearing set.

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant's factory being closed when the order was dispatched. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that serving the order on the Consultant was valid, stating the Consultant was not authorized to receive the order. The Tribunal allowed the COD application and scheduled the stay petition for a hearing on 10-4-2012.

---

---

Issues involved: Delay in filing appeal, service of order on authorized agent

Delay in filing appeal: The appellant sought to condone a delay of 114 days in filing the appeal, explaining that their factory was closed when the impugned order was dispatched. The order was returned with a remark stating "nobody is available in the factory." The appellant only became aware of the order after being informed by Revenue to deposit the dues, and subsequently obtained a copy of the order from their Consultant, filing the appeal on 23-3-2011. The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional.

Service of order on authorized agent: The Revenue contended that the order served on the Consultant should be considered as appropriately served, citing Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that the Consultant was only authorized to advance arguments and defend the appellant, not to receive the order. The Tribunal held that the provision does not cover the situation where the order is received by the Consultant without separate authorization.

Decision: The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the order was received back by the appellant and no further service was shown. Considering the subsequent collection of the order by the appellant from the Consultant, the Tribunal allowed the COD application and listed the stay petition for hearing on 10-4-2012.

---