Affixing Orders at Incorrect Premises Cannot Trigger Appeal Limitation: Analysis of CESTAT Allahabad Ruling in Parvez Ahmad Ansari Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST

Background and Procedural History

The decision in Parvez Ahmad Ansari Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Allahabad) addresses a recurring and critical issue in indirect tax litigation: when does the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal actually begin, especially where service of the adjudication order is disputed.

The assessee challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 310/ST/ALLD/2024 dated 05.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal as time-barred, without examining the dispute on merits, on the footing that the limitation period had started from an alleged service of the adjudication order by affixture (Chaspa).

The assessee carried this order to CESTAT Allahabad, contending that the adjudication order had never been validly communicated, and hence the appellate limitation period could not be computed from the date adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Core Facts of the Dispute

Non-receipt of SCN and ex parte adjudication

  • The assessee asserted that:
    • The Show Cause Notice (SCN) was never served.
    • No notices of personal hearing were received.
  • As a result, the Order-in-Original dated 11.03.2023 was passed ex parte by the Adjudicating Authority.

Failed service by Registered Post

  • After passing the Order-in-Original, the Department dispatched it by Registered Post.
  • The postal article was returned undelivered.
  • This fact was not in dispute between the parties.

Discovery through GST portal and subsequent service

  • The assessee was registered under GST with Registration No. 09ABTPA3147J1ZF.

  • According to the assessee, the very first time he became aware of:

    • the demand and
    • the existence of the Order-in-Original dated 11.03.2023

    was when Form GST DRC-07A was uploaded on the GST portal.

  • Thereafter, on approaching the Department, a copy of the Order-in-Original was served on 30.01.2024.

  • The assessee then filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 28.02.2024, i.e., within 60 days from 30.01.2024, which is the normal limitation period prescribed for filing such appeals.

Department’s stand: service by Chaspa and Panchnama

  • The Department relied on a Panchnama dated 27.04.2023, asserting that:
    • After the Registered Post was returned undelivered, the Order-in-Original was affixed (Chaspa) on the main door of the assessee’s premises.
    • The Panchnama was prepared at the time of this alleged affixture.
  • Based on this Panchnama, the Commissioner (Appeals) treated 27.04.2023 as the date of service of the Order-in-Original.
  • Calculating limitation from 27.04.2023, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appeal filed on 28.02.2024 was beyond the prescribed time and therefore not maintainable.

Proceedings before CESTAT Allahabad

Submissions of the assessee

The learned Advocate for the assessee argued:

  • There was no actual or valid service of the Order-in-Original on or around 27.04.2023.
  • The assessee had no knowledge of any service by way of Chaspa at the alleged premises.
  • None of the Panchnama witnesses were from the neighbourhood of the assessee or otherwise known to him.
  • The assessee maintained that effective communication of the Order-in-Original occurred only on 30.01.2024 when a physical copy was handed over following discovery of the demand via Form GST DRC-07A.
  • Consequently, the appeal filed on **2...