9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the appeal before the lower appellate authority on merits. 3. The records disclose that the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only on the ground that there was delay of 14 days in filing appeal and there was no application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. It is however, the case of the appellant that there was no delay considering the period which was spent between the date of receipt of the order of the lower authority by the appellant and the day on which appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the background of this situation, in our considered opinion, no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending and merely dealing with the stay appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals) however, in the meanwhile dismissed the appeal by order dated 28-11-08. 6. Records undoubtedly disclose that hearing of the matter took place on 6-11-08 and order records that no material was placed by the appellant in support of their of contention of delay in receipt of the copy of the order. However, the impugned order also discloses that in the course of hearing, the appellant had submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that they would explain the gap of 14 days being the period between the date of dispatch and the date of receipt of the order by the appellant. Undoubtedly, no material was submitted till the date of passing of the order. At the same time, records apparently disclose that the appellant had made eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of time could be great injustice to the appellant. 8. It is also not forgotten that the copy of the order was dispatched under speed post. Being so, though there is presumption about the receipt of the copy of the order by the addressee, there is no presumption as regards the date of receipt of the order nor there was any documentary evidence produced by the department particularly in respect of the date of receipt of the order by the appellant. 9. As the copy of the order was received by the appellant on 18-6-08 and the appeal was filed on 13-8-08 that is within 60 days, there was no delay in filing appeal and hence there was no question of any condonation of delay as such. In the circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
