9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y received the order on the date of the order and that date was relevant was not acceptable - the date of receipt in the review section is the relevant date - the date of receipt of the order in the concerned section and the review had been done within a period of three months – order was set aside – appeal was allowed by way of remand – decided in favour of assessee. - C/736/2012 - Final Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner. 2. The Commissioner reviewed the order of the Dy. Commissioner on 18/08/2009 and was of the view that the order was not legal, correct and proper and accordingly an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 02/09/2009 i.e., within the 30 days stipulated period for filing the appeal. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the review should have been undertaken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the review section for receipt and dispatch of the correspondence. As evident from the said extracts that the order of the adjudicating authority was received on 20/05/2009. Inasmuch as the review was done on 18/08/2009, the review was done in time and, therefore, the order of the lower appellate authority is not legally sustainable. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent says that the rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant case, the date of receipt of the order in the concerned section is 20/05/2009 and the review has been done on 18/08/2009 i.e within a period of three months. Therefore, the findings of the lower appellate authority that the review has been done beyond the period of limitation prescribed in law is patently wrong. 6. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the Revenue's appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
