Valid service on authorised representative starts limitation and bars an appeal filed beyond the prescribed extension period.

Valid delivery of an adjudication order to an authorised representative can trigger limitation where the representative appeared in the proceedings and service complies with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On those facts, the appeal against rejection of a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was filed beyond the sixty-day period and also beyond the further condonable thirty days under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellate authority was therefore justified in treating the appeal as time-barred and declining to entertain it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation, and whether delivery of the order to the appellant's authorised representative constituted valid service so as to trigger the period of limitation.

Analysis: The appeal arose from rejection of a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The central controversy was the date on which the Order-in-Original was communicated. The majority held that the order had been received on 02.01.2018 by the appellant's authorised representative who had appeared in the adjudication proceedings, and that such delivery satisfied Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the appeal filed on 09.05.2018 was beyond the statutory period of sixty days and also beyond the further condonable period of thirty days under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The majority further held that the appeal could not be maintained on a mere photocopy of the order, and that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting it as time-barred.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be barred by limitation and the rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustained.

Dissenting Opinion: One Member held that service on the authorised representative was sufficient, but concluded that the appeal filed beyond the condonable period could not be entertained and therefore agreed with dismissal on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudication order is validly delivered to an authorised representative in terms of the statutory mode of service, limitation runs from that date, and an appellate authority cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period including the condonable extension.

---