Appeal time limit starts at order communication, not sending. Proper service crucial.

The Appellate Tribunal found that the appeal was not time-barred as the limitation for filing an appeal starts from the communication of the order, not the sending of the order itself. Without evidence of delivery or receipt by the appellant, the service of the order could not be deemed proper under section 37(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, allowed the stay petition, and remanded the matter for verification of the date of receipt of the order by the appellant, emphasizing the importance of proper service and the necessity of evidence for establishing delivery of orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Time bar for filing appeal based on the date of communication of the order.
2. Interpretation of service of decisions orders under section 37(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Requirement of evidence of delivery for proper service.

Analysis:

1. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing representations from both sides, noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred. The impugned order was dispatched on 12-10-2007, and the appeal was filed on 6-4-2009, more than 17 months later. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation for filing an appeal starts from the communication of the order, not the sending of the order itself. Since there was no evidence that the order was received by the appellant or that the acknowledgement due was returned, the Tribunal found that the appeal was not time-barred.

2. The Tribunal referred to the provisions of section 37(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concerning the service of decisions orders, which also apply to service tax under section 83 of the Act. The Tribunal highlighted that the service of the order must be completed as per the requirements of section 37. However, without evidence of delivery or receipt by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the service could not be deemed proper.

3. Relying on a previous decision of the Tribunal in a similar case, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition, set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and remanded the matter for verification of the date of receipt of the order by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper service as contemplated by law and the necessity of evidence to establish the delivery of orders. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of time bar for filing an appeal, the interpretation of service provisions under the Central Excise Act, and the requirement of evidence for proper service, providing a detailed understanding of the Tribunal's decision in this case.

---