JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J. This appeal arises from a judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 17 January 2012. 2. The Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur passed an order dated 3 September 2001 confirming a duty demand of Rs.2.18 lacs under Section 11(A)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing a penalty in the like amount and interest under Section 11AB. The demand for duty was founded on a finding that there was clandestine removal of dutiable goods. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 189 of 2011, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 9 February 2011 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy against the order of adjudication. The Commissioner (Appeals), by his order dated 22 March 2011, dismissed the appeal on the ground that he had no power under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to condone the delay of more than 30 days beyond the period of limitation of 60 days for filing an appeal. The appeal which was filed after a delay of 9 years 4 months 25 days was held to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22 March 2011. 3. According to the appellant, the order of adjudication dated 3 September 2001 was actually communicated only on 28 January 2011. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that since the actual date of acknowledgement of the order was not available, he summoned the record from the Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Excise, Kanpur, who submitted a photocopy of the acknowledgement of the order dated 3.9.2001, which showed that the order of adjudication had been served on Sri Vikas Agrawal, son of Sri R.K. Agrawal, Managing Director of the appellant on 19 September 2001, whereas the appeal had been filed on 14 February 2011. 4. Now, at this stage, it would be necessary to note that when the appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal, all that was stated in paragraph 12 of the memo of appeal was that the Department had not produced the acknowledgement before this Court in the earlier proceedings and that the acknowledgement was infructuous and beyond the purview of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ proceedings. Moreover, it may be noted that even in the rejoinder, which was filed by the appellant in the earlier proceedings, all that was stated was that Mr. Vikas Agrawal was living separately and due to loss in the business and disputes in the family, there was no communication between them. If, according to the appellant, Vikas Agrawal was not an authorised representative within the meaning of Section 35Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944, such a ground ought to have been specifically raised. No such ground was raised in the memo of appeal. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the copy of the order of the Adjudicating Officer was received at the address of the appellant. 5. The appellant did not lay any foundation in the pleadings before the Tribunal or for that matter even before the Commissioner (Appeals) to support the contention that the order of the Adjudicating Officer had not been served on an authorised person. It must also be noted that the correctness of the finding of fact which was recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals), was not questioned before the Tribunal. 6. In this view of the matter, the appeal will not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the period stipulated in the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal, which was filed well beyond 9 years from the date of the receipt of the order of the Adjudicating Officer was clearly barred by limitation. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.