Effective communication of orders is essential for the commencement of the limitation period for appeals under the Central Excise Act.

Order :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. This tax appeal preferred under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was admitted for hearing on 27-1-2025 by formulating a substantial question of law, which was modified on 14-2-2025, which reads as under: -

“Whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant and affirming the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by holding that Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the appellant being barred by limitation, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record?”

2. In order to answer the aforesaid substantial question of law, following facts are required to be noticed: -

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued show cause notice to the appellant on 15-5-2017 and ultimately, after hearing the appellant, the Assistant Commissioner passed adjudication order on 5-12-2017. As per the provisions contained in Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, the order was required to be communicated by the Assistant Commissioner to the person aggrieved / appellant herein. According to the respondents herein, the said order was communicated to the appellant in original vide speed post / consignment No.EC080953003IN dispatched from their office on 15- 12-2017. However, it is the case of the appellant that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was actually received by him on 27-7- 2018 through e-mail and consequently, he preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Central Excise) on 25-9-2018 reciting that the order has been received by him on 27-7-2018. However, by order dated 14-12-2018, the learned Commissioner (Central Excise) dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal is barred by limitation as it ought to have been preferred within 60 days from the date of communication of such order by speed post and feeling aggrieved against that order, the appellant herein preferred appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 12-2-2019 which has also been dismissed by the said Tribunal holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal as there is no power conferred to the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay of more than 30 days beyond 60 days during which the appeal was otherwise required to be filed relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others, (2008) 3 SCC 70. Assailing legality, validity and correctness of the judgment & order passed by the CESTAT affirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been preferred in which substantial question of law, as shown in the opening paragraph of this order, has already been formulated for consideration.

4. Mr. Adhiraj Surana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, would submit that the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise was required to communicate the order to the appellant by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act and the mode of communication is provided in Section 37C. He would further submit that by virtue of Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, the order can also be served by speed post with proof of delivery as inserted in Section 37C(1)(a) with effect from 10-5-2013 and in the instant case, though the respondents have filed documents pursuant to the order of this Court that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was dispatched by speed post vide consignment No.EC080953003IN, but the said document clearly states that the status of delivery as appearing in Indiapost.gov.in says, “Consignment Details Not Found”. Once the order is received by e- mail on 27-7-2018, appeal has been filed on 25-9-2018 within the period of limitation, therefore, the appeal ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation by the Commi