Dismissed appeal due to time-barred non-receipt of order under Central Excise Act 1944.

The appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to the non-receipt of the Adjudication Order and service of the order under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act 1944. The appellant's argument that they did not receive the order due to the closure of their company was countered by the Revenue's contention that the order was properly served by affixing a copy at the factory gate. The tribunal upheld the Revenue's submissions, citing compliance with Section 37C(1)(a) of the Act and referring to a Supreme Court judgment that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delays beyond the prescribed limitation period. The appeal was rejected, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal dismissed as time-barred due to non-receipt of Adjudication Order and service of order under Section 37C of Central Excise Act 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed as time-barred. The Consultant for the appellant argued that the Adjudication Order was not communicated to them, and they only obtained a copy under the RTI Act in 2013. The main contention was the lack of service of the order as per Section 37C(1)(a) of the Act. The appellant's company was closed and declared sick by BIFR. The argument was supported by referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court. The appellant had not received the order due to closure, and now they wished to reopen the factory, requesting a lenient view from the tribunal.

2. The Revenue's Authorized Representative contended that the order was served by tendering in person at the appellant company's premises, as evidenced by the Panchanama. Since nobody was available to receive the order, a copy was affixed on the notice board at the factory gate. The Representative argued that this method of service complied with Section 37C(1)(a) of the Act.

3. The tribunal, after considering both arguments and examining the records, found merit in the Revenue's submissions. It was observed that the Central Excise officers had tendered the order in person at the factory premises, and upon finding the factory closed, had affixed a copy of the order at the factory gate. This action was deemed within the purview of service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act 1944. The tribunal noted that this fact was not disputed by the appellant.

4. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, it was highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the authority to condone delays beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and rejected the appellant's appeal, thereby disposing of the stay application as well.

---