https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240039 The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal as time-barred, finding the impugned order effectively served on 15.7.2006, making the appeal filed on 12.1.2011 outside the permissible timeframe. Despite the appellant's arguments of ignorance and factory closure, evidence of attempted service supported the Revenue's position. The Tribunal upheld the limitation bar, dismissing the appeal and COD application. The judgment detailed the recall of the final order, determination of the limitation period, and validation of service, ultimately concluding the appeal was time-barred and inadmissible. en-us Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:50:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240039 The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal as time-barred, finding the impugned order effectively served on 15.7.2006, making the appeal filed on 12.1.2011 outside the permissible timeframe. Despite the appellant's arguments of ignorance and factory closure, evidence of attempted service supported the Revenue's position. The Tribunal upheld the limitation bar, dismissing the appeal and COD application. The judgment detailed the recall of the final order, determination of the limitation period, and validation of service, ultimately concluding the appeal was time-barred and inadmissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240039