Appeal Dismissed for Late Filing: Delivery Date Discrepancy in Central Excise Case

The appeal was dismissed due to a delay in filing within the specified period under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on discrepancies in the delivery date of the Order-in-Original. The appellant claimed to have received the order on a different date than recorded, leading to suspicions of tampering with the delivery records. The Tribunal ordered further investigation into the discrepancies and directed the respondent to present original registers to determine the actual delivery date, emphasizing the significance of accurate documentation in legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Appeal dismissed due to delay in filing within the stipulated period under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Discrepancies in the delivery date of the Order-in-Original.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as it was filed beyond the period specified in Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on the delivery date of the Order-in-Original dated 29 August, 2017. The appellant claimed to have received the order on 6 August, 2018, which was doubted by the Commissioner due to perceived abnormal delay.

2. The appellant's counsel presented the envelope containing the Order-in-Original with Speed Post No. ER924187517IN, sent on 1 September, 2017. Additionally, they provided another envelope from the Assistant Commissioner's office, received on 11 August, 2018. The counsel also produced despatch and speed post registers obtained under the Right to Information Act.

3. Examination of the speed post register revealed discrepancies in entries for 31 August and 4 September 2017, with a specific entry for Vedanta Limited dated 1 September, 2017, differing in format and details from other entries. The appellant's counsel suggested this entry was manipulated post-dispatch.

4. Affidavits from two advocates who inspected the registers supported the claim of tampering, highlighting the anomalous entry for Vedanta Limited. The dismissal of the appeal solely based on the delivery date prompted the Tribunal to order the Assistant Commissioner to submit a personal affidavit in response to the advocates' affidavits.

5. The Tribunal directed the respondent to present the original despatch and speed post registers on 10 May, 2019, ensuring no tampering. The discrepancies in the delivery dates and the suspected alteration in the records necessitated further investigation to ascertain the actual date of delivery of the Order-in-Original, emphasizing the importance of accurate documentation in legal proceedings.

---