Tribunal overturns dismissal, emphasizes procedural adherence, grants timely appeals, remands for fair hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to late filing. The Tribunal found that the adjudication order was not properly served, leading to a correct computation of the limitation period for filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were considered timely filed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements. The matter was remanded for the Commissioner (Appeals) to provide reasoned decisions and ensure the appellant's right to a personal hearing, ensuring a fair outcome in favor of the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal of appeals for being filed beyond condonable time limit
- Service of adjudication order
- Computation of limitation for filing appeals

Analysis:
The judgment deals with appeals challenging the dismissal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being filed beyond the condonable time limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals stating that the time limit for filing had lapsed and could not be condoned. However, the Tribunal, in its analysis, found that the adjudication order had not been served on the appellant as per the requirements of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the order was not communicated within the stipulated time, as claimed by the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the date of receipt of the order as claimed by the appellant for the purpose of computing the limitation period. As the appeals were filed within the statutory time limit after the receipt of the order, the Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeals.

Furthermore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing reasoned and speaking orders on the appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of affording the appellant a due opportunity of personal hearing in this process. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, indicating a favorable outcome for the appellant in this case. The judgment highlights the significance of proper service of adjudication orders and the correct computation of limitation periods in matters of appeal before the Tribunal, ensuring fair and just proceedings for all parties involved.

---