Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Vijay Pratap, S/o Shri Ambika Singh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax – Respondent
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 or
Effective communication of orders is essential for the commencement of the limitation period for appeals under the Central Excise Act.
Legal presumption of service exists when orders are sent to the registered address; failure to inform address changes can lead to dismissal of appeals as filed beyond limitations.
Assessment – Condonation of Delay in filing Appeal - Appellate authority is not empowered to condone the delay beyond the aggregate period of limitation - statutory appeal was barred by limitation, t....
Effective communication of adjudication orders is essential for initiating limitation under GST laws, and electronic service via the Common Portal alone does not satisfy this requirement.
When Tribunal has set aside the order to the extent of clandestine removal without giving any reasoning and ignoring the submissions of the department with regard to facts and evidence on record.
The judgment establishes the principle that recovery of demand without proper service of adjudication order and in excess of the statutory deposit amount is arbitrary and illegal.
Section 35 F of Act is concerned, this speaks of mandatory deposit of service, percentage of amount in dispute while filing Appeal before the CESTAT and same has been brought on statute book from 06.....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
