Appeal Dismissed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Significant Delay Beyond Limitation Period

M/s. Jaipur Straw Board & Papers Ltd. And Another Versus Union of India And 3 Others

M/s. Jaipur Straw Board & Papers Ltd. And Another Versus Union of India And 3 Others - TMI Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory limitation period.
2. Validity of the order of adjudication dated 3 September 2001 and its communication to the appellant.
3. Failure of the appellant to raise specific grounds regarding the authorized representative in the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contended that the order of adjudication dated 3 September 2001 was communicated only on 28 January 2011. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation, stating that he lacked the power to condone a delay of more than 30 days beyond the statutory period of 60 days for filing an appeal. The Tribunal subsequently upheld this decision, emphasizing that the appeal filed after a delay of 9 years and 4 months was clearly barred by limitation. The High Court concurred, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to condone such a significant delay beyond the statutory limit, thereby dismissing the appeal.

2. The Tribunal found that the order of the Adjudicating Officer had been served at the appellant's address, as evidenced by the acknowledgment dated 19 September 2001. The appellant failed to establish any foundation or challenge the factual findings before the Tribunal regarding the service of the order. The High Court noted that the appellant did not raise any specific grounds regarding the authorized representative in the appeal before the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the appeal did not present any substantial question of law, and the delay in filing the appeal rendered it clearly barred by limitation.

3. The appellant's failure to raise specific grounds regarding the authorized representative in the appeal before the Tribunal was noted by the High Court. Despite the appellant's assertion that the authorized person had not received the order, no such ground was raised in the appeal. The Court highlighted that the correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s factual findings was not challenged before the Tribunal. Therefore, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the appellant's lack of foundation in the pleadings to support the contention that the order had not been served on an authorized person.