2004 (3) TMI 695 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay application for filing appeal.
2. Proper service of impugned order-in-appeal.

Condonation of Delay Application:
The appellants sought condonation of a delay of one year, seven months, and twenty days in filing the appeal. The impugned order-in-appeal was passed on 10-5-2000, but the appeal was filed on 9th August 2002. The COD application was initially dismissed by the Bench after hearing both sides. However, a Misc. Application for recall of the order was moved by the appellants, and it was posted for hearing before another Member who recalled the order passed by the initial Bench. The second Bench did not have the authority to recall the order passed by the first Bench. Despite this, the original judge proceeded to decide the COD application based on another Bench's order dated 29-9-2003.

Proper Service of Impugned Order-in-Appeal:
The appellants contended that the impugned order-in-appeal was not served personally on them and was only received on 23-7-2002. They argued that the service was improper as it was pasted on the outer door of their factory premises. The appellants claimed that the appeal was filed within time. However, the judge noted that the exact date of receipt of the order was not provided by the appellants. The closure of the unit and its relocation to Ghaziabad were communicated to the Department, but no new address was provided for correspondence. As a result, the Department pasted the order on the factory premises. The judge rejected the argument that this mode of service was improper, citing the appellants' failure to provide a new address for communication. Referring to a previous judgment, the judge highlighted that the appellants did not take necessary steps to ensure receipt of the order-in-appeal. Consequently, the judge dismissed the COD application and the appeal as time-barred.

In conclusion, the judgment dealt with the condonation of delay application and the issue of proper service of the impugned order-in-appeal. The judge emphasized the importance of timely filing appeals and proper communication with the Department for effective service of orders. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to the appellants' failure to provide a new address for correspondence after relocating their unit.