Appellate authority's rejection of belated appeals overturned; must adhere to statutory provisions for serving orders.

The appellate authority's rejection of appeals as belated due to lack of communication of orders was deemed legally unsound. The court held that the authority cannot extend the period for delayed filing and must adhere to statutory provisions for serving orders. The judgment allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the appellate body to entertain the appeals promptly and in accordance with the law.

---

---

Issues involved: The issues involved in this case include the rejection of appeals by the first respondent on the grounds of being filed belatedly, the communication of orders under the Customs Act, and the authority of the appellate body to extend the period for filing appeals.

Rejection of Appeals: The petitioner imported goods classified under CTH 85249999, exempted from counter veiling duty u/s Notification No. 6/2006. The petitioner claimed benefit of the notification for refund of excess duty. Appeals were filed within the period of limitation, but rejected as belated by one day. The contention was that the appeals were filed within the extended period allowed u/s 128 of the Customs Act. The authorities have no power to extend the period for delayed filing, but the date of communication of orders is crucial for determining the limitation period.

Communication of Orders: The appellate authority rejected the appeals due to being filed belatedly, citing "notice" as bringing it to a person's knowledge. However, the statutory provision u/s 153 of the Customs Act specifies the manner of serving orders, which was not followed in this case. The petitioner's constructive knowledge cannot be accepted as a valid reason for rejecting the appeals. The absence of communication of orders as per statutory provisions renders the reasoning of the appellate authority legally unsound.

Authority to Extend Period: The appellate authority's reasoning on the knowledge of the petitioner and the lack of communication of orders was deemed extraordinary and not supported by statutory provisions. The service of notice must adhere to the prescribed manner in the statute. The orders impugned in the writ petitions were set aside, directing the appellate authority to entertain the appeals promptly and in accordance with the law. The judgment allowed the writ petitions and closed the connected M. PS without costs.

---