9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) rejected as 'barred by time'.
Analysis: The appeal in question was directed against an order rejecting the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) as 'barred by time'. The Commissioner (Appeals) had determined that the adjudication order was passed on 4-8-2000 and dispatched on 4-10-2000, while the appeal was filed only on 5-11-2004. The Commissioner noted that the service of the order was confirmed by the Department of Post and that the appellant had not submitted any affidavit supporting the claim of receiving the order only on 20-10-2004. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that an affidavit dated 27-10-2004 of Shri Subash Bhatia was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), contrary to the Commissioner's observation that no affidavit had been submitted. Regarding the service of the adjudication order, the Counsel stated that the appellant had been actively pursuing the matter before various authorities since the hearing on 20-12-99. The Counsel presented a timeline of communications with authorities requesting the adjudication order, indicating the appellant's efforts to obtain the order. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's continuous pursuit of the matter since 1999 supported the contention that the order was received only on 20-10-2004. It was emphasized that the dispatch of a letter by registered post does not conclusively prove receipt by the party, as the presumption created by dispatch is rebuttable. In this case, the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's finding that the appeal was time-barred was unjustified. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits, and the appeal was disposed of by way of remand. This judgment highlights the importance of actively pursuing legal matters, the significance of providing supporting documentation such as affidavits, and the rebuttable nature of the presumption of receipt in cases involving registered post correspondence.
|
