Full Judgment
2. The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise on 30.09.99. However, as per the appellants, they came to know about the said order only when their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities approached them for recovery. They accordingly applied for obtaining a photocopy of the order. Attested copy of the order-in-original was given to them on 01.10.2001, wherein the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 26.03.2002.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) called upon the appellants to explain as to why their appeal should not be dismissed as barred by limitation.
The appellants contended that though the attested copy was given to them on 01.10.2001, but since the same was not signed by the adjudicating authority, they took up the matter with the concerned authorities for supply of signed copy of the order. The signed and attested copy was given to them only on 28.01.2002 and appeal was thereafter filed on 26.03.2002.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not accepted the above contention of the appellants and has rejected the appeal on the point of time barred.
The same contentions have been re-iterated before me by the Ld.
Advocate Shri D.M. Mishra, appearing for the appellants. I have also heard ld. DR, who submits that the appeal having been admittedly filed after a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, the same has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. After considering the submissions made by both sides, I find that there is no dispute about the facts that attested copy of the order was supplied for the first time to the appellants on 01.10.2001. The appellant's stand that the same was not signed and, as such, proper cannot be accepted as the appellants could have filed their appeal there against within time and in case of objection by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) could have subsequently obtained the proper copy. Instead, they waited and persuade the matter with the office of the original adjudicating authority and filed the appeal after a period of more then 1-1/2 years from the date of receipt of the order. It is now well settled that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have any powers to condone the delay beyond the period of sixty days from the expiry of the limitation period. As such, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The same has been rightly rejected by him as time barred. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merit in the appeal and reject the same.