M/s Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-II)
The limitation for an appeal to the Tribunal runs from actual service of the first appellate order, and where an order is sent by speed post with no acknowledgement, service cannot be assumed from the date of dispatch.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-15
Greaves Cotton's nine appeals to the Tribunal were thrown out as late although it received the first appellate order only on 31 March 2025 after enquiring about its status. The Madras High Court held that the order had not been served as the law requires, that the Tribunal appeals were in time, and that the first appeals filed on the day after a Sunday were also maintainable.
What happened
Orders-in-original in nine matters, covering periods between 2012 and 2016, were passed on 30 November 2021 and 20 January 2022. The company filed its first appeals on 30 May 2022, taking the benefit of the Supreme Court's order extending limitation in the suo motu proceeding on limitation, because 29 May 2022 was a Sunday. After a personal hearing the first appellate authority rejected the appeals as barred by limitation, on the ground that no relaxation beyond the period fixed by the statute or the Supreme Court's order was available, but no order reached the company until, on enquiry, it received a copy of the first appellate order on 31 March 2025. It treated that as the date of service and appealed to the Tribunal on 3 June 2025. By an order of 27 November 2025 the Tribunal held the appeals defective as barred by limitation and dismissed the condonation application.
Questions before the court
- Was the appeal to the Tribunal within time, with limitation counted from 31 March 2025 when a copy of the first appellate order was actually received?
- Were the first appeals, filed on 30 May 2022 after a Sunday, in time?
Why the court ruled this way
The Court said that the appearance of a document identification number on the appellate order only authenticates the order and does not show service. Section 37C requires service of an order by registered post or speed post with acknowledgement due, and the reply to the company's Right to Information application showed only that the order had been dispatched by speed post, with no mention of an acknowledgement, so the prescribed procedure had not been followed (paragraph 11). The date of service was therefore 31 March 2025 and the Tribunal appeals filed on 3 June 2025 were within time. As for the first appeals, section 4 of the Limitation Act applies where the last day falls on a day the office is closed, and, supported by the Uttarakhand High Court's decision in Sai Auto Industries, the appeals filed on the next working day were maintainable.
Controlling point
The date of service of the first appellate order is the date on which the order was actually received where the statutory mode of service with acknowledgement was not followed, and filing on the next working day after a Sunday is within time.
Order and next steps
The Tribunal's orders dismissing the appeals as barred by limitation were quashed. Since the company had not been heard on the merits at either stage, the matters were remanded to the first appellate authority to be decided in accordance with law. The civil miscellaneous appeals were allowed, the connected petitions were closed and there was no order as to costs.
Practical implications
An assessee who learns of a first appellate order late should record how and when the copy was obtained, and ask the department how the order was served. A document identification number or a speed-post dispatch entry with no acknowledgement does not prove service. If the last day for filing falls on a Sunday or a holiday, filing on the next working day is within time.
Limits of this ruling
- The judgment attributes section 37C to the Customs Act; the service provision applicable to these excise and service tax matters is section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court did not decide the merits of any demand.
Law and judgment source
- Central Excise Act, 1944, sections 35G and 37C
- Limitation Act, 1963, section 4
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-15 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 8–15 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.