Deemed service and limitation: dispatch records, notional receipt, and burden on appellant justified dismissal without separate notice.

Properly addressed and posted adjudication documents attracted deemed service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, so the limitation objection could be decided on the available service record as a mixed question of fact and law. The appellant had special knowledge of receipt issues but failed to prove non-service or supply of an alternate address, and the existing dispatch evidence, acknowledgements, and surrounding circumstances justified an adverse inference. Rejection of the appeal on limitation without a separate notice did not violate natural justice because no prejudice was shown, and the appeals were held time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was incorrect in rejecting the appeal on limitation without issuing notice to the appellant, and whether such rejection violated principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether the appeals were time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was incorrect in rejecting the appeal on limitation without issuing notice to the appellant, and whether such rejection violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The question of limitation was treated as a mixed question of fact and law requiring examination of the service of the show cause notices and orders. The appellant was aware of the delay issue and the facts concerning receipt of documents were within its special knowledge. The Tribunal applied the principle that the party asserting a fact must prove it and held that prejudice from lack of a separate limitation notice was not established. The service record and surrounding circumstances were sufficient to decide the limitation issue.

Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in rejecting the appeal without a separate notice on limitation, and there was no violation of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals were time-barred.

Analysis: The record showed dispatch details for the notices and orders, and in some instances postal acknowledgements were available. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 supported deemed service by properly addressed and posted documents. The appellant failed to establish non-receipt or to show that an alternate address had been supplied. The Tribunal also drew adverse inference from the available service evidence and the long delay in filing the appeals.

Conclusion: The appeals were time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the limitation-based dismissal failed on both legal and factual grounds, and the dismissal of the appeals was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where dispatch and service evidence show proper service of adjudication documents, a limitation objection may be decided as a mixed question of fact and law, and the burden lies on the appellant to prove non-service and justify the delay.

---