Tribunal sets aside Commissioner's order, emphasizing proof burden on Department for limitation period under Excise Act.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits. The decision emphasized the importance of establishing the actual date of service for determining the limitation period under the Excise Act, highlighting the burden of proof on the Department to establish the date of service. The Tribunal's decision underscored the significance of specifying order dates and maintaining postal tracking reports for determining limitation periods.

---

---

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal under section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed by M/s Shree Cement Limited against an order confirming the demand of central excise duty with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that it was not filed within the stipulated period provided under section 35(1) of the Excise Act. The Commissioner calculated the initial period of sixty days from January 18, 2019, the date of the original order, and concluded that the appeal was filed after two months and ten days, beyond both the normal and extended limitation period. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed dispatching the order on the same day it was dated, but the appellant failed to provide evidence of non-receipt. The Commissioner held that the appeal was liable to be rejected due to being filed beyond the prescribed period.

In response, the appellant argued that the date of actual receipt, not dispatch, should determine the limitation period under section 35(1) of the Excise Act. They highlighted the provisions of section 37C, emphasizing that the order should be deemed served on the date of receipt. The appellant contended that if the date of receipt, March 27, 2019, was considered, the appeal would fall within the limitation period. The authorized representative for the Department supported the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the critical factor for determining the limitation period was the date of actual service of the order upon the appellant, not the date of dispatch. The burden of proof lay on the Department to establish the date of service, which was not done. As the Department failed to provide evidence contradicting the appellant's claim of receiving the order on March 27, 2019, the appeal was deemed to be within the sixty-day limitation period. Consequently, the Commissioner's order rejecting the appeal on the grounds of limitation was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of specifying the date of orders and emphasized the need for maintaining postal tracking reports for determining limitation periods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits. The Tribunal's decision underscored the significance of establishing the actual date of service for determining the limitation period under the Excise Act.

---