Appeal rejected as time-barred due to appellant's non-appearance and failure to request adjournment.

The appeal was rejected as time-barred by the first appellate authority. The appellant failed to appear for the hearing or request an adjournment. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 13.02.2012, with the appellant claiming non-receipt and requesting a copy in 2013. The Revenue argued that the OIO was sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) to the known address, supported by case law. The court upheld the rejection, citing legal precedents, and dismissed the appellant's appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal rejection as time-barred by first appellate authority.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against an OIA dated 08.08.2014, where the first appellate authority rejected it as time-barred. The appellant did not appear for the hearing, nor did they request an adjournment. The Revenue argued that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 03.02.2014 against an OIO dated 13.02.2012, which the appellant claimed to have received on 02.12.2013. The Revenue contended that the OIO was sent by RPAD to the same address where the show cause notice was sent, and the appellant requested another copy in 2013. The learned AR cited case laws to support the sufficiency of communication delivery through RPAD.

The main issue in this case was whether the appeal was correctly rejected as time-barred. The appellant filed the appeal on 03.02.2014 against an OIO dated 13.02.2012, claiming non-receipt of the OIO and requesting another copy in 2013. The show cause notice was sent to the known address of the appellant and was received by them. The OIO was also dispatched by RPAD to the same address. No change in the appellant's address was communicated to the authorities. The first appellate authority relied on case law to establish that communication sent by RPAD to the correct address constitutes proper delivery. The judgment cited precedents from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court to support this conclusion.

Considering the settled legal proposition and the facts of the case, the judge found no reason to interfere with the first appellate authority's order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected.

---