TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ility has not been discharged by the appellant that a show cause notice No.11096 dated 16.09.2008 was served upon the appellant. The proposed demand was confirmed vide Order-in- Original No.3743 dated 31st March, 2013. Being aggrieved, the appeal was preferred before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the order under challenge has dismissed the appeal in limini on the point of limitation holding the appeal to have been filed after complete delay of 3 years and 2 months. Being still aggrieved, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Ms. Priyanka Goyel, ld. Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. G.R. Singh, ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad-I - 2009 (5) TMI 763-CESTAT, Admd. [2009 (247) ELT 304 (tri.- Admd.)] 5. While rebutting these arguments, ld. DR has mentioned that the order was dispatched to the appellant and the same was received back with the aforesaid remarks. It amounts to the sufficient service. Therefore, arguments as put forth by the appellant on date are not acceptable. Finally relying upon Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S. C.) appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both sides, we are of the opinion that the controversy herein is as to whether the order of Original Adjudicating authority was ever received by the appellant. The relevant provision for the purpose i.e. Section 37 C of the CEA reads as follows:- 37C. Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er challenge, it is apparent that there is a document of dispatch of the order i.e. vide dispatch No.2200 dated 3rd March, 2010. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that the compliance of Rule (a) Section 37 C of CEA stands fulfilled. There was no need to the Department to adopt any other mode as prescribed under various other Sections. 7. Now coming to the plea of the appellant that they have not received the order. We observe from the record that there is a clear cut finding of Commissioner (Appeals) about receiving the aforesaid dispatch order with an endorsement/remarks "lene se inkar". The said finding makes it clear that the dispatched order was served upon the appellant. However was refused to be received by him. Though the ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond ....