- (1.) THE appeal by the assessee arises from an order of the C.E.S.T.A.T. dated 21 June 2013 on an application for rectification filed by the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 17 December 2009 against an order dated 31 December 2008 of the Joint Commissioner of the Central Excise, Kanpur. By an order dated 19 April 2010, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the decision of the Adjudicating Officer and that he had power under section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days only, if he was satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of thirty days. The Tribunal confirmed the decision in appeal on 7 February 2012. In an appeal filed by assessee, a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 12 December 2012 permitted the appellant to move an application for rectification before the Tribunal since the contention of the appellant at that stage was that the order of the Adjudicating Officer was served on an employee of the appellant Vijay Agarwal, who was not an authorised representative within the meaning of Section 37C(1)(a). Accordingly, an application for rectification was filed, which has been dismissed by the impugned order by the Tribunal.
(2.) SECTION 35(1) requires an appeal to be filed within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order to the assessee. However, under the proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals), on sufficient cause having been shown, can allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of thirty days. Section 37C provides that any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under the Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any. The issue before the Tribunal was whether Vijay Agarwal was an authorised representative of the assessee.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Vijay Agrawal, though an employee of the assessee, was not an authorised representative. Relying upon the proviso to Section 350, it is urged that an authorised representative means a person authorised by the assessee which, in this case, would mean a legal practitioner.;