2025 (9) TMI 749 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals dismissed as time-barred where statutory two-month appeal period plus one-month condonation expired; prior service objections rejected

M/s Keihin Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Noida

CESTAT, Allahabad dismissed the appeals as time-barred. The bench held that appeals must be filed within two months of receipt of the order-in-original, ... Dismissal of appeal on the ground of time limitation - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay of one month in filing the appeal on sufficient cause being shown - main contention of the appellant is that the method of tendering the orders was not proper and if there is any dispute on the issue the balance of convenience should go in favour of the appellant - HELD THAT:- Similar contentions raised by the appellant in their appeal E/70106, 70107 & 70109/2019 have been rejected by coordinate bench of CESTAT vide final order A/71274-71276/2017-SM (BR) dated 27.06.2019 [2019 (6) TMI 1437 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] observing that 'The period of limitation of 60 days starts running from the date of receipt of the impugned order. The same would in the present case would expire on or around 02 March, 2015. The appeal admittedly stands filed on 01 July, 2016 with a delay of 211 days. It is settled law that Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed under the Act.' In case of Sunshine Velvet Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (7) TMI 620 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] the order was sent by the post and received by one contract security person Shri Rajendra Singh Bisht, whom CESTAT found to be not the authorized person. In the case of Shree Developer the the order was received by M/s. Kamlesh Kumar & Associates, Chartered Accountant, whom bench has concluded not to be the authorized person to receive the order after examining the authorization given to the Chartered Accountant for appearance in the proceedings before the adjudicating authority - In case of Shridhar Construction [2023 (2) TMI 233 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] the order was received by the accountant of the appellant firm who has not communicated to the appellant firm in time, taking note of the fact, bench had remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for reconsideration of the issue on limitation. It is observed that the appeals were to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeal) within two months of the date of the receipt of the Order-in-Original by the appellants. As per the proviso Commissioner (Appeal) has been granted the power to condone delay of one month in filing the appeal on sufficient cause being shown. In the present case appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeal) after more than the period provided in law from the date of receipt of Order-in-Original. Hence Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly held that appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and has dismissed the same on this ground alone. There are no merits in these appeals filed by the appellants - appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the Tribunal are barred by statutory limitation where the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed period and beyond the additional period that the Commissioner (Appeals) may condone. 2. Whether service/communication of Orders-in-Original by physical tendering as recorded in a departmental dispatch register, and acknowledgement by an employee/representative, constitutes valid receipt for the purpose of computing limitation. 3. Whether defects alleged in the mode of tendering (including comparison to other procedural codes) or arguments based on 'balance of convenience' and internal irregularity can negate the dispatch register entries or justify condonation of delay. 4. Whether decisions relied upon by the appellant involving service to persons not authorized to receive orders are applicable or distinguishable on the facts. 5. Whether remand directions by the Tribunal requiring fresh decision on limitation and supply of the Assistant Commissioner's report were complied with and whether remand affects the limitation analysis. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Limitation: statutory period and scope of condonation power Legal framework: The statute prescribes a primary limitation period for filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and an express proviso authorizing the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay only for a specified additional period (statutorily limited). The statutory scheme excludes reliance on general limitation-saving provisions beyond this specified window. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal follows higher-court authority holding that the appellate authority's condonation power is confined to the express additional period in the statute and that Section 5 of the general Limitation Act cannot be invoked to extend beyond that period. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasons that the appeals were filed well beyond both the primary period and the limited statutory extension. Given the express statutory scheme, the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the prescribed additional period. The Tribunal applies the principle that statutory limitation provisions are to be strictly followed where the statute prescribes a limited extension and excludes general extension mechanisms. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the statutory proviso limits condonation authority to the specified period and bars condonation beyond it; applications of general limitation principles are excluded where the statute so prescribes. Conclusions: Appeals filed beyond the prescribed period and statutory extension are barred; the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly dismissed the appeals as time-barred and the Tribunal finds no merit in arguments seeking to extend limitation beyond the statutory window. Issue 2 - Validity of service by tendering recorded in dispatch register Legal framework: The relevant enactment prescribes service by tendering as the primary mode of communication, potentially followed by postal modes; 'tender' contemplates physical presentation to the person or their representative. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relies on authority recognizing that a dispatch register entry coupled with acknowledgment by the recipient's representative is sufficient to establish receipt for limitation purposes, unless it is shown that the recipient was not authorized or that the entry is otherwise vitiated. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal finds undisputed factual entries in the dispatch register showing physical handover to the appellant's representative. Bank records showing credit of refund amounts and absence of contemporaneous protest or correspondence corroborate that the orders were received and acted upon. The Tribunal rejects the contention that the register signature related only to receipt of cheque and not the order, noting the register records the specific Order-in-Original numbers. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - dispatch register entries and attendant acknowledgements are competent evidence of service by tendering and trigger the running of limitation where the recipient's representative accepted the documents. Conclusions: Service by tendering as evidenced by the dispatch register was valid; receipt occurred on the recorded date and limitation commenced accordingly. Issue 3 - Alleged improper mode of tendering, reliance on other procedural codes, and balance of convenience Legal framework: Service under the statute is governed by the statute's prescribed method; procedural rules from other enactments (e.g., criminal procedure) are not automatically applicable to statutory service provisions. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal distinguishes/appreciates authorities where service was effected on unauthorized persons (rendering service invalid) from the present fact situation where service was effected on an acknowledged representative. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal rejects the appellant's contention that lack of statutory detail about tendering requires application of other procedural codes. It treats the statutory term 'tender' in its ordinary meaning - physical delivery - and holds that where an authorised or accepted representative signs for receipt, objections to the mode of tendering raised belatedly cannot displace the clear documentary record. The 'balance of convenience' argument is not persuasive in the face of undisputed factual evidence of receipt and subsequent conduct (acceptance of refund amounts without objection). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - mere procedural quibbles about mode of tendering do not suffice to negate clear contemporaneous acknowledgment of receipt by an authorised representative; the statutory mode governs. Conclusions: The mode of tendering was proper in law and the balance of convenience argument fails; no sufficient cause arises to negate the service or justify condonation. Issue 4 - Distinguishability of precedents relied upon by the appellant Legal framework: Authorities where orders were served upon unauthorised persons or third parties have established that such service may be invalid; factual matrix is determinative. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal examines the decisions submitted by the appellant and finds them factually distinguishable - those cases involved service on persons not authorised to receive orders, whereas the present dispatch register shows service on the appellant's employee/agent. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasizes factual differences and holds that the appellant's cited authorities do not advance its case because they do not address the present factual scenario of acknowledged receipt by an employee/agent and subsequent acceptance of refund proceeds. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - precedents concerning invalid service on unauthorised persons are not applicable where service was accepted by an authorised representative and corroborated by documentary and transactional evidence. Conclusions: The appellant's authorities are distinguishable and do not warrant a different result. Issue 5 - Compliance with remand directions and impact on limitation analysis Legal framework: A remand for fresh decision on limitation and supply of reports requires the appellate authority to afford opportunity and consider the material; remand does not nullify statutory limitation provisions. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal reviews the remand order's requirement to supply the Assistant Commissioner's report and to afford opportunity to the appellant. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal finds that the remand directions were complied with: the report and dispatch register were shown during personal hearing and the appellant's representative was afforded opportunity to comment. Since the factual matrix continued to demonstrate valid receipt, the limitation conclusion stands unaffected by remand. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a remand for fresh consideration does not preclude a proper fresh finding of limitation where remand directions are complied with and evidence supports receipt on the recorded date. Conclusions: Remand was complied with; fresh decision on limitation was permissible and resulted in dismissal of the appeals as time-barred. Appeals dismissed accordingly.