CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.II (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.138/ST/APPL/ALLD/2025 dated 12/08/2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise &

Service Tax, Allahabad)

M/s B N Cement Distributors, …..Appellant (Old Katra, Prayagraj-211001)

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise &

CGST, Allahabad ….Respondent (38 MG Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad)

APPEARANCE Shri Ramlakhan Yadav, Consultant for the Appellant Smt Chitra Srivastava, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.70056/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 19 February, 2026 DATE OF DECISION : 19 February, 2026 SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.138/ST/APPL/ALLD/2025 dated 12/08/2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad. By the impugned order following has been held:- “I have carefully gone through the case records, and find that the appeal has been filed on 12.08.2024 against the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 which as per ST-4 is said to have been communicated to the appellant on 18.06.2024. The appellant has submitted that he came to know of the impugned order when the department personally served the recovery notice vide letter dated

24.11.2023. Thereafter the appellant vide letter dated 15.04.2024 requested for certified copy of impugned order and also inquired the mode, of communication and proof of delivery. Heeding the request of the appellant, the Jurisdictional Division. Office provided the copy of said order vide their letter dated 18.06.2024 and informed that the impugned order was dispatched which was never returned back undelivered I note that the impugned order was issued on 16.03.2021 against which the appeal has been filed on 12.08.2024. There is an inordinate time gap between these two dates. The appellant has submitted that he was not at all aware of the impugned order issued -against him, however he came to know of it only when the recovery proceedings were initiated and he received the letter for recovery on 24.11.2023. I also note that when appellant came to know of the impugned order issued against him he made correspondence with the department on 15.04.2024 after a gap of about three and half months. In this regard I fail to understand as to what compelling him to procure the impugned order after a gap of more than three months when it already came to his notice that demand of certain amount has been confirmed against him. I find that the appellant has remained silent on the issue of making no effort to procure the impugned order during the gestation period from 24.11.2023 to 15.04.2024. Thus I find that there is blatant laxity on the part of the appellant which is not justifiable. Thus I hold that the appeal is hit by period of limitation.”

2.1 I have heard Shri Ramlakhan Yadav learned Consultant appearing for the appellant and Smt Chitra Srivastava learned Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue.

3.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 3.2 I find that the issue involved in the present appeal is with respect of condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeal). It is submission of the appellant that they had received the letter dated 24.11.2023 initiating the recovery proceedings in terms of the order in original against them on 24.11.2023 by hand. However even on the receipt of that letter appellant sought to stay silent and it was only on 15,04.2024 that appellant first time wrote to the department seeking the copy of the order in original. The correspondences made are reproduced below:-

Further from the perusal of letter dated 18.06.2024 that department had been constantly pursuing for the recovery of demands confirmed against the appellant by the order in original dated 16.03.2021. Letter bearing No 787 dated 30.07.2021, 337 date