9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rna, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 12-3-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellants against the order-in-original holding the same to be time-barred. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the impugned order was received by them only on 10-6-2002 from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t record and of penalty through bank challan on the dates detailed above, could not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the impugned order was received by them before the deposit, in the impugned order, it has been observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the order-in-original passed on 6-2-2002, was despatched on 8-2-2002 to the appellants but who received it on behalf of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -company, had not been disputed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. He has not even referred to it. 5. The appellants had no motive in not filing the appeal within time from the date of receipt of order-in-original. They had rather deposited the entire duty and penalty as confirmed against them through the order-in-original. If they had actually received the order on or before 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of justice and if pitted against the justice, the latter has to prevail. The appellants deserves to be heard on merits especially when they had already deposited the duty and penalty. It is not a case where it could be said that the assessee was avoiding the payment of duty and penalty and was only interested in prolonging the matter. Rather it is a case where the assessee-appellants had pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
