Appeal allowed on timeliness, remanded for further hearing.

The appeal was allowed by way of remand as the Tribunal held that the adjudication order should be considered received by the appellant on the date of communication. Since the appeal was filed within one month from receipt, there was no delay. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal's merits after providing the appellant a personal hearing. The impugned order dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against dismissal on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an order dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground of limitation. The appellant argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as the adjudication order was received within the time frame. The Department, however, contended that since the order was sent via speed post and not returned, it was deemed to have been served on time. The Tribunal noted that the proof of delivery of the order was not available, as required by Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, it was presumed that the order was not received by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the date of communication of the adjudication order for computing the limitation period should be considered as the date it was received by the appellant. As the appeal was filed within one month from the receipt of the order, the Tribunal found no delay in filing the appeal. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) had not discussed the merits of the case, the matter was remanded back to him for a decision on the appeal's merits after affording the appellant a personal hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.

---