https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774273 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed appellant's appeal by remand after finding it was filed within limitation period. The tribunal held that under amended Section 37C of Central Excise Act, service by speed post requires proof of delivery, which was absent. While adjudicating authority claimed order was dispatched via speed post on 02.04.2022, there was no proof of delivery. The tribunal relied on Bombay HC precedent that mere dispatch is insufficient compliance. Since appellant received order copy on 07.02.2023 and filed appeal on 29.03.2023, it was within two-month limitation period. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing appeal on time limitation grounds. Case remanded for merit consideration. en-us Wed, 25 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774273 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed appellant's appeal by remand after finding it was filed within limitation period. The tribunal held that under amended Section 37C of Central Excise Act, service by speed post requires proof of delivery, which was absent. While adjudicating authority claimed order was dispatched via speed post on 02.04.2022, there was no proof of delivery. The tribunal relied on Bombay HC precedent that mere dispatch is insufficient compliance. Since appellant received order copy on 07.02.2023 and filed appeal on 29.03.2023, it was within two-month limitation period. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing appeal on time limitation grounds. Case remanded for merit consideration. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 25 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774273