CESTAT appeal dismissed as time-barred due to lack of awareness of proceedings, delay not condoned

The High Court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The court affirmed that the appellant's claim of not being aware of the adjudication proceedings was not valid as the orders were duly served and known to them. The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was significant and could not be condoned. The appellant's association with another entity was deemed irrelevant, and the appeal was dismissed without raising any substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred and awareness of adjudication proceedings.
3. Claim of association with another entity and the impact on the appeal timeline.

Issue 1:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, stating that they were carrying out manufacturing activities and had duly followed all procedures under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules. The appellant claimed that despite discharging their duty liability, they were issued a show cause notice which they alleged was not received by them, leading to an ex-parte order without their knowledge. They contended that they were not aware of the adjudication proceedings and orders passed against them.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that their factory was closed, and a new registration was issued in the name of another entity, which was informed about the orders-in-original, not the appellants. The appellant claimed that the appeal was not time-barred as they received the orders at a later date and filed the appeal accordingly. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the CESTAT found that the orders were duly served and known to the appellants, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

Issue 3:
The appellants claimed an association with another entity, M/s. Narayan Dyeing, and argued that their knowledge of the orders was based on the date they received them, not the date of the order. Despite this argument, both the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the CESTAT confirmed that the orders were served and known to the appellants. The CESTAT held that the appeal, filed after a significant delay from the date of order receipt, could not be accepted, as the delay was considerable and could not be condoned. The reliance on correspondence by M/s. Narayan Dyeing was deemed irrelevant as the appellant was a distinct entity, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without raising any substantial question of law.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, dismissing the appeal as time-barred and affirming that the findings of fact did not raise any substantial question of law. The court found that the appellant's association with another entity did not impact the awareness of the orders served on them, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.

---