https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792626 Valid delivery of an adjudication order to an authorised representative can trigger limitation where the representative appeared in the proceedings and service complies with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On those facts, the appeal against rejection of a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was filed beyond the sixty-day period and also beyond the further condonable thirty days under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellate authority was therefore justified in treating the appeal as time-barred and declining to entertain it. en-us Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2026 16:59:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792626 Valid delivery of an adjudication order to an authorised representative can trigger limitation where the representative appeared in the proceedings and service complies with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On those facts, the appeal against rejection of a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was filed beyond the sixty-day period and also beyond the further condonable thirty days under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellate authority was therefore justified in treating the appeal as time-barred and declining to entertain it. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792626