CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.I (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-001-APP-86-2025-26 dated 20.06.2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Noida)

M/s CPS Security Pvt. Ltd., …..Appellant (1^st Floor, 38, Omaxe Arcade Near Pari Chowk, Distt.-G.B. Nagar-201308)

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise &

CGST, Noida ….Respondent (4^th Floor, C-232-A/2, GST Bhawan, Sector-48, Noida-201305)

APPEARANCE Shri Abhinav Kalra, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.- 70012/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION : 05.01.2026 The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the Order-in-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-001-APP-86-2025- 26 dated 20.06.2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals)

Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Noida.

2. I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits but dismissed the same on the ground of limitation.

3. The Order-in-Original dated 19.09.2023 was issued on 20.09.2023. However, again there is noting on the Order-in- Original vis-à-vis “Get it Served”. This noting is dated 10.10.2023. It is the submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant that there was a phone call sometime in the month of October, 2024 to the Appellant assessee directing them to visit the office of the Assistant Commissioner CGST, Division-VI Noida to collect the Order-in- Original dated 19.09.2023. After receiving the phone call, the Appellant assessee visited the office and collected the Order-in- Original on 21.10.2024. The appeal was filed before the first Appellate Authority on 12.12.2024 which is well within the statutory period of two months from the date of receiving of the Order-in-Original. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)

in para 8.1 of the impugned order have observed as under:- “8.1 I observe that as per sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the Act, an appeal relating to service tax, interest or penalty shall be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of such adjudicating authority before the first appellate authority. From the appeal memo (ST-4), I observe that the adjudication order dated 19.09.2023 was received by them on 21.10.2024. The department has dispatched the impugned OIO on 20.03.2023. The appellant is saying that they received it on 21.10.2024 and accordingly have filed appeal on 12.12.2024 against the impugned order dated 19.09.2023. This assertion is not acceptable as the same was sent to his registered address by the department. Therefore, I find that the instant appeal has been filed late. No condonation for the delay has been filed, no explanation as to why & how an order dated 19.09.2023 has been received by them on 21.10.2024 has been furnished. Thus, I find that the appeal has been filed beyond the appealable period of 60 days, even beyond the further condonable period of 30 days.”

4. The short controversy involved in the present appeal is that whether the appeal filed by the Appellant was filed within the prescribed period of limitation specified under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not. The period of limitation provided under the said Section 35 is „sixty days from the date of communication of decision or order‟. On one hand the Appellant claims that the Order-in-Original dated 19.09.2023 was communicated to him for the very first time only on 21.10.2024 when the copy of the said order was made available to him whereas on the other hand the impugned order records that the said order was dispatched by Speed Post vide letter dated 20.03.2023.

5. Since the impugned order records that the order dated 19.09.2023 was dispatched by Speed Post, hence it is necessary to refer to Section 37C of the Act, relevant part of which is reproduced here:-

“SECTION [37C. Service of decisions, orders, su