2013 (4) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected the Excise Appeal No.2806-2807 of 2010 SM arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 72-73 dated 10.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. 3. The CESTAT rejected the appeal as barred by limitation. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also rejected the appeal as barred by time. The Order-in-Original was passed on 28.9.2007. A copy of the order was sent to the appellant under registered cover. It was submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the order was not served upon the appellant. The revenue resorted to the provisions of Section 37-C (1b) of Central Excise Act (in short, the Act) by pasting the order on the factory gate on 5.12.2007. The appellant stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that he c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the revenue was complete in terms of Section 37-C of the Act. Once it is admitted that the appellant came to know about the pasting of the order on 26.12.2007, the appeal should have been filed in time. The appellant had not made any averment to show that only first page of the order was pasted. Apart from it the appellant having addressed a letter in December 2007, for supply of copy of the order did not make any effort to procure a copy immediately. The appellant was aware that the appeal had to be filed within 60 days and that the delay of only 30 days thereafter could be condoned. The appeal was filed about 8-9 months after the expiry of the period of limitation. 8. Shri A.P. Mathur submits that the Order-in-Original was never served....