2004 (3) TMI 125 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses appeal due to filing delay & improper service of order, emphasizing lack of communication and evidence.

The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to a delay in filing appeals and improper service of the adjudication order. The appellant's argument that ... Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay Issues:1. Delay in filing appeals2. Proper service of adjudication orderAnalysis:1. Delay in filing appeals:The appellant filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed as time-bar due to a delay of three years and four months in one appeal and one year in another. The appellant contended that their factory was closed and taken over by SIDBI due to arrears. They argued that the adjudication order was not served properly as it was pasted on the factory gate without being sent through registered A.D. The appellant cited a decision of the Allahabad High Court to support their argument. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the appellant failed to appear before the adjudicating authority, did not inform about the change of address, and thus the appeal was rightly dismissed as time-bar. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide evidence to show that the adjudication order was not sent through Registered A.D. The Tribunal found that the facts of the case cited by the appellant were not applicable as the order in the present case was indeed sent through Registered A.D. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of proper communication and failure to inform the Revenue about the change of address.2. Proper service of adjudication order:The appellant raised concerns about the proper service of the adjudication order, arguing that it was not sent through Registered A.D. and was directly affixed to the factory gate. However, the Tribunal found an endorsement on the order indicating that it was sent through Registered A.D. The appellant's failure to inform the Revenue authorities about the change of address was also highlighted. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not provide any evidence to refute the endorsement on the order. The Tribunal distinguished the cited case where the order was not sent through Registered A.D. from the present case where the order was sent through Registered A.D. before being affixed to the factory gate. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal based on the lack of evidence and failure to inform the Revenue about the change of address.