https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42023 The court interpreted the term "date of order" under Section 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, emphasizing that the appeal should be preferred from the date of service of the order. It rejected the petitioner's argument that an appeal sent by post before the expiry of the prescribed period should be considered as preferred on the date of posting. The court also ruled that the appellate authority does not have the power to condone delay in preferring an appeal in the absence of a specific provision for condonation. Additionally, it held that a personal hearing was not required when the appeal was time-barred, dismissing all contentions raised by the petitioner and rejecting the writ petition. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:34:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42023 The court interpreted the term "date of order" under Section 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, emphasizing that the appeal should be preferred from the date of service of the order. It rejected the petitioner's argument that an appeal sent by post before the expiry of the prescribed period should be considered as preferred on the date of posting. The court also ruled that the appellate authority does not have the power to condone delay in preferring an appeal in the absence of a specific provision for condonation. Additionally, it held that a personal hearing was not required when the appeal was time-barred, dismissing all contentions raised by the petitioner and rejecting the writ petition. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42023