Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed within limitation, and whether the limitation period had to be computed from the date of actual communication of the adjudication order under the prescribed mode of service.
Analysis: The limitation for filing an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 runs from the date of communication of the order, and service must conform to Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Mere dispatch is not enough unless actual delivery is shown in the manner prescribed by law. On the facts, the record indicated that the adjudication order was made available to the appellant only on 03.07.2019, and the appeal filed on 29.08.2019 was within the statutory period computed from that date. The finding that there was no evidence of non-receipt was held unsustainable, as the burden lay on the Department to show proper service.
Conclusion: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within limitation, and the order dismissing it on the ground of limitation was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a specific mode of service, limitation for appeal begins only upon valid communication in that mode, and dispatch without proof of actual service does not start the limitation period.