Valid communication to authorised counsel can trigger limitation, making a later receipt claim ineffective for appeal filing.

Communication of an excise order to an authorised counsel was treated as valid service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the later claim of receipt by the appellants did not extend the appeal period. The record showed dispatch by speed post, prior communication to counsel, and correspondence from the appellants indicating awareness that final orders had been passed. As there was no corrigendum changing the operative order and the evidence of earlier service was not rebutted, the appeals were held time-barred and the limitation objection was accepted in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals were barred by limitation on the ground that the impugned orders had already been communicated to the appellants and their authorised counsel, and whether the alleged later receipt could extend the period for filing appeal.

Analysis: The appellants' own correspondence showed that they had sought a copy of the order after learning from counsel that final orders had been passed. The record also showed dispatch of the orders by speed post and communication to the counsel who had appeared for them. Under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, communication to an authorised agent is sufficient communication. The Tribunal distinguished the authorities relied upon by the appellants, noting that there was no corrigendum altering the operative order and that the evidence of prior service was not rebutted.

Conclusion: The appeals were held to be time-barred, and the objection on limitation was accepted in favour of the Revenue.

---