https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190252 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the adjudication order was not served on the appellant due to factory closure, resulting in a delay in filing the appeal. The appeals were filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, upon receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Tribunal rejected reliance on the mahazar date for calculating the appeal period, holding that the order's communication date, not the affixation date, was crucial. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reasoned decision after granting the appellant a personal hearing. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2017 22:57:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190252 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the adjudication order was not served on the appellant due to factory closure, resulting in a delay in filing the appeal. The appeals were filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, upon receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Tribunal rejected reliance on the mahazar date for calculating the appeal period, holding that the order's communication date, not the affixation date, was crucial. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a reasoned decision after granting the appellant a personal hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190252