Appeal Held Time-Barred for Lack of Proof of Service under Sections 85(3A) and 37C(1) by assessee

CESTAT (AT), New Delhi upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' dismissal of the assessee's appeal as time-barred. It held that under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, limitation for appeal runs from the date of receipt of the adjudication order, read with the service provisions in Section 37C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee failed to establish the actual date of receipt of the Order-in-Original or any irregularity in service, and had not raised these pleas before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found lack of due diligence and ruled that the assessee could not benefit from its own omissions, affirming the time-barred dismissal.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the appeal before the first appellate authority was barred by limitation in terms of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 37C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

1.2 Whether, in the facts of the case, the appellant could rely on an alleged date of receipt of the Order-in-Original to compute limitation, in the absence of contemporaneous pleading or proof, and whether precedents on proof of delivery were applicable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Limitation for appeal; burden of proving date of receipt; applicability of precedents on proof of delivery

Legal framework

2.1 The Court noted that under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the prescribed period of two months for filing an appeal is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority.

2.2 The Court referred to Section 37C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, providing that any decision or order shall be served, inter alia, by speed post with proof of delivery, and if such service is not possible in the prescribed manner, by affixing a copy at a conspicuous place at the business/residence of the person concerned.

2.3 The Court observed that for invoking these provisions in favour of an assessee, there must be an apparent and established fact that the order was never received during the prescribed period by the person for whom it was intended.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.4 The Court accepted the principle, also reflected in the case law cited by the appellant, that the relevant date for computation of limitation is the date of receipt of the impugned order, and not the date of passing of such order.

2.5 However, the Court examined the factual matrix and chronology of events: audit in October-November 2018; audit objection letter dated 12.11.2018; appellant's reply dated 28.11.2018 acknowledging the short payment and alleged reversal; show cause notice dated 16.04.2019; multiple letters for personal hearing; ex parte Order-in-Original dated 16.07.2020; appeal filed before the first appellate authority on 28.09.2022; and Order-in-Appeal dated 19.07.2024 dismissing the appeal as time-barred.

2.6 The Court noted that the appellant had prior knowledge of the audit objection, had acknowledged the tax liability of Rs. 1,36,361/-, claimed reversal without proof, and thereafter neither replied to the show cause notice nor appeared before the adjudicating authority despite opportunities granted.

2.7 The Court highlighted that the appeal before the first appellate authority was filed after more than two years from the date of the Order-in-Original, and that, although the appellant later asserted that the order was received on 04.08.2022, there was no such plea in the memorandum of appeal filed before the first appellate authority.

2.8 In particular, the Court referred to Para A.3 of the grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority, which only alleged violation of natural justice due to non-service of letters of personal hearing, and absence of proof of service of those documents, but did not assert non-receipt of the Order-in-Original or specify any date of actual receipt.

2.9 The Court considered the letter produced at the Tribunal stage, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Behror, allegedly requesting a copy of the Order-in-Original after receipt of a demand notice, with the department's receipt date shown as 18.07.2022. The Court observed that there was no evidence of the date of the alleged demand notice, and found it implausible to presume that such a notice pursuant to the order dated 16.07.2020 would be served only after two years.

2.10 The Court emphasized that neither the said letter nor any plea relating to receipt of the Order-in-Original on 04.08.2022 had been brought before the first appellate authority. The Court treated the plea of receipt on 04.08.2022 as an afterthought, raised for the first time before the Tribunal to cover up the delay in filing the appeal.

2.11 The Court held that in these circumstances, the appellant displayed lack of due diligence, and could not be permitted to derive benefit from its own omissions. Mere absence of proof of delivery from the department, particularly when no such proof was demanded earlier, could not, by itself, be used to defeat the statutory limitation.

2.12 The Court, therefore, found that the factual foundation necessary to invoke the principles and precedents relied upon by the appellant-concerning proof of delivery and presumption regarding service-was missing, and hence those decisions were inapplicable to the present case.

Conclusions

2.13 The Court concluded that the statutory period of limitation under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, had expired long before the appeal was filed before the first appellate authority.

2.14 The Court held that no satisfactory reason or legally sustainable explanation was given by the appellant for the prolonged delay, nor was any credible proof furnished to establish a later date of receipt of the Order-in-Original.

2.15 The Court upheld the finding that the appeal before the first appellate authority was rightly dismissed as time-barred, found no infirmity in the impugned order, and dismissed the appeal before the Tribunal.

---