Tribunal allows appeal due to missed service, sets aside delay, emphasizes communication date for filing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the adjudication order was not served on the appellant due to factory closure, resulting in a delay in filing the appeal. The appeals were filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, upon receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Tribunal rejected reliance on the mahazar date for calculating the appeal period, holding that the order's communication date, not the affixation date, was crucial. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reasoned decision after granting the appellant a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues:
Dismissal of appeals for being filed beyond the condonable period prescribed under the statute.

Analysis:
The appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were dismissed as being beyond the condonable period. The appellants claimed non-receipt of adjudication orders due to factory closure, and only became aware of the orders through a letter from the Superintendent. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a mahazar drawn on a specific date to determine the receipt of the order. The appellant argued that the order was never served, citing the Tribunal's decision in a similar case. The Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner's findings.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that due to factory closure, the adjudication order was not served on the appellant, leading to a delay in filing the appeal. The appeals were filed within the prescribed time limit as per Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, upon receiving a certified copy of the order. The Tribunal rejected the reliance on the mahazar date for determining the appeal's limitation period. The mahazar indicated that the appellant's unit was non-existent at the site where the order was affixed, and the present address was unknown. The Tribunal concluded that Section 37C did not apply as the order was not served at the factory or residence. Referring to the Nalin Chemicals case, the Tribunal held that the date of communication of the order was when it was received by the appellant, not the affixation date. Therefore, the appeal was not time-barred.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding it to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reasoned order after providing the appellant with a personal hearing.

---