https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54291 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's rejection of the appeal, ruling that the appeal was filed within the time limit. It emphasized that the date of tendering an order to a representative should be considered as the date of service when the order is returned undelivered. The decision clarified that deeming provisions under Section 37C(b) & (c) of the CE Act, 1944, cannot apply if appellants were not contacted by postal authorities. This case underscores the importance of accurately determining the date of service for calculating appeal limitation periods and ensuring fair application of legal provisions. en-us Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:10:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54291 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's rejection of the appeal, ruling that the appeal was filed within the time limit. It emphasized that the date of tendering an order to a representative should be considered as the date of service when the order is returned undelivered. The decision clarified that deeming provisions under Section 37C(b) & (c) of the CE Act, 1944, cannot apply if appellants were not contacted by postal authorities. This case underscores the importance of accurately determining the date of service for calculating appeal limitation periods and ensuring fair application of legal provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54291