CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.I (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-EXCUS-001-55-APP-25-26, dated - 28/05/2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & Central Excise, Noida)

M/s Jagmandeep Singh …..Appellant (C-43, Sector-33, Near NTPC Township, G.B. Nagar Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201301)

VERSUS Commissioner, CGST, Noida ….Respondent (GST Bhawan, IRCON Building, Plot No.-C-232, A/2-A/3, Sector-48, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida-201301)

APPEARANCE A letter on record for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO.-70040/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 18.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION : 18.02.2026 P. K. CHOUDHARY:

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the Order-In-Appeal No.NOI-EXCUS-001-55-APP-25- 26, dated-28.05.2025 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Noida.

2. I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits but rejected the same on account of being barred by limitation of time.

3. It is the case of the Appellant-Assessee that the Order-In- Original dated 14.03.2024 was never received by him and it was only on his request, a copy of the Order was provided on 09.08.2024 and the appeal was filed on 19.09.2024 within the statutory period of 60 days. There is no evidence on record to show that the Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2024 has been received by the assessee before 09.08.2024.

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 14.03.2024 was communicated to him for the very first time only on 09.08.2024 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 as informed by Assistant Commissioner, Division VI, CGST, Noida vide letter dated 22.05.2025.

5. Since the impugned order records that the order dated 14.03.2024 was dispatched by Speed Post, hence it is necessary to refer to Section 37C of the Act, relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-

“SECTION [37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. — (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served, -

(a) by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due [or by speed post with proof of delivery or by courier approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963)] to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any;

(b) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order, summons or notice, as the case may be, is intended;

(c) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clauses (a) and (b), by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.

(2) Every decision or order passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which the decision, order, summons or notice is tendered or delivered by post [or courier referred to in sub-section (1)] or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in subsection (1).]”

On perusal of