https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107205 Receipt of the appellate order by an employee was treated as receipt by the assessee, so the late filing of the appeal was correctly treated as time-barred where no condonation was sought at the proper stage. Separately, entitlement to Modvat credit depended on the final product's classification: if the product was dutiable under the claimed tariff heading, credit on inputs could follow, but a nil-rate classification would attract the Rule 57C(1) bar. Because the classification dispute directly affected the credit claim, the Modvat appeal should not have been finally decided before the classification appeal, and the matter was remanded for that sequence to be followed. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:29:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107205 Receipt of the appellate order by an employee was treated as receipt by the assessee, so the late filing of the appeal was correctly treated as time-barred where no condonation was sought at the proper stage. Separately, entitlement to Modvat credit depended on the final product's classification: if the product was dutiable under the claimed tariff heading, credit on inputs could follow, but a nil-rate classification would attract the Rule 57C(1) bar. Because the classification dispute directly affected the credit claim, the Modvat appeal should not have been finally decided before the classification appeal, and the matter was remanded for that sequence to be followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107205