https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767577 The HC held that the limitation period under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act commences from actual communication of the order to the aggrieved party. The court found that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred. Since the appellant was communicated the adjudication order via email on a specific date, the subsequent appeal filed within 60 days was within the prescribed limitation period. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits, with the substantial question of law answered in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:25:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767577 The HC held that the limitation period under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act commences from actual communication of the order to the aggrieved party. The court found that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred. Since the appellant was communicated the adjudication order via email on a specific date, the subsequent appeal filed within 60 days was within the prescribed limitation period. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication on merits, with the substantial question of law answered in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767577