9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been filed by the appellant, against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 8-11-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the Order-in-Original, as time barred. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that no copy of the order was received by the appellant nor was ever refused by him when it was sent by post. The appellant came to know about the pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant and thereafter the date on which the counsel for the appellant applied for copy of the order and the date on which it was delivered and the date of the filing of the appeal. The perusal of this chart shows that the order was pronounced on 20-12-2001. The order was then despatched on 15-2-2002 which was sent by registered post on 18-2-2002. The remarks of the postal authorities not me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that date. But I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to this view of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). There is nothing on record to suggest if the appellant has any motive in not filing the appeal in time if he had received the copy of the order sent by post. There is also no material on record to suggest that any certificate from the postal authority was taken about the correctness of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the order on the appellant. 5. Moreover, it is well settled that technicalities cannot be permitted to stand in the way of justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have heard the appeal of the appellant on merits instead of dismissing the same on technical ground of limitation. 6. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
