https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762503 The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed an appeal that was rejected on limitation grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly determined that the original order was properly served to the appellant via registered AD, with stamped acknowledgement received by the Commissionerate as sufficient compliance under Section 37(C) of Central Excise Act 1994. Since the appeal was filed beyond the two-month statutory period prescribed under Section 84 of Finance Act 1994, the Commissioner (Appeals) properly rejected it without examining merits. The CESTAT found no error in the limitation findings and upheld the dismissal. en-us Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Dec 2024 08:44:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762503 The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed an appeal that was rejected on limitation grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly determined that the original order was properly served to the appellant via registered AD, with stamped acknowledgement received by the Commissionerate as sufficient compliance under Section 37(C) of Central Excise Act 1994. Since the appeal was filed beyond the two-month statutory period prescribed under Section 84 of Finance Act 1994, the Commissioner (Appeals) properly rejected it without examining merits. The CESTAT found no error in the limitation findings and upheld the dismissal. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762503