https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771636 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal by remand after finding that the Commissioner Appeals erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Commissioner had relied solely on the dispatch date of 23.07.2015 without evidence of actual delivery to the appellant. Following precedent from Chhattisgarh HC in Vijay Pratap vs. CCE & ST, the tribunal held that limitation period under Section 35(1) of Central Excise Act begins only upon effective communication of the order to the aggrieved party. Matter remitted to Commissioner Appeals for adjudication on merits. en-us Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 May 2025 08:41:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771636 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal by remand after finding that the Commissioner Appeals erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Commissioner had relied solely on the dispatch date of 23.07.2015 without evidence of actual delivery to the appellant. Following precedent from Chhattisgarh HC in Vijay Pratap vs. CCE & ST, the tribunal held that limitation period under Section 35(1) of Central Excise Act begins only upon effective communication of the order to the aggrieved party. Matter remitted to Commissioner Appeals for adjudication on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771636