2006 (2) TMI 406 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation period for filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Service of adjudication order to the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Limitation period for filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals)

The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals as being beyond the period of limitation, citing that the appeals were filed more than three years late, whereas appeals must be filed within three months of receiving the order as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner relied on previous decisions, including one by the Supreme Court, stating that if a notice is served by registered post, it is considered "served." The appellant argued that the order was sent to the factory address, and communication should have been sent to other addresses provided. The Commissioner's decision was deemed incomplete as it did not consider all communications between the department and the appellant. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh determination on the limitation issue, instructing the Commissioner to disclose facts about the service of the order to the appellant for their submissions.

Issue 2: Service of adjudication order to the appellant

The appellant contended that the adjudication order was sent to the factory address, and subsequent communications were directed to other addresses, making it unclear if the order was properly served. The appellant also highlighted a letter to the Joint Commissioner complaining about non-receipt of the order and seeking a certified copy, which was allegedly not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned SDR supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on legal precedents but was unable to confirm the factual position regarding the appellant's letters. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision on the service of the order was incomplete and required a fresh determination after considering all communications between the department and the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals by way of remand, directing the Commissioner to reevaluate the limitation issue after considering all relevant communications and providing the appellant with an opportunity to make submissions before passing a new order.