1990 (1) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed as time-barred.
2. Contention regarding the appeal being deemed presented on an earlier date due to a letter sent under Certificate of Posting.
3. Dispute over the receipt of the letter by the Collector and the presumption of correctness of official acts.
4. Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 regarding the time limit for filing appeals.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which was dismissed by the Collector as time-barred. The appellant claimed to have sent a letter under Certificate of Posting on 11-5-1984, followed by the appeal on 12-11-1984, received by the Collector on 15-11-1984, beyond the six-month limitation period from the date of receipt of the Assistant Collector's order.

2. The appellant argued that the appeal should be deemed presented on 11-5-1984, relying on the Telegraph Rules, 1948, which presume receipt under Certificate of Posting. However, the respondent contended that mere assertion of sending a letter is insufficient without evidence of receipt by the Collector, emphasizing that the Post Office is not the Collector's agent.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to conclusively establish the receipt of the letter by the Collector, as asserted by the Collector in his order. The absence of evidence supporting the claim, other than a Postal certificate, led to the presumption of correctness of official acts under Section 114(G) of the Indian Evidence Act. Citing a Supreme Court decision, it was clarified that no personal hearing is required when an appeal is time-barred, and the Collector cannot extend the time limit beyond six months.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, stating that the appeal was time-barred under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The rejection of the appeal was deemed appropriate, as the appellant failed to demonstrate timely filing, leading to dismissal of the appeal without grounds for interference. The judgment concluded with the dismissal of the appeal.