9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the order had been served on the respondent as it evident from the initials of the respondent’s employee on the covering letter dated 10-12-2002 of the department, forwarding the order, the plea of the respondent is that no order was enclosed with this letter. We agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that from this letter, there is no indication that the person who had received this letter had also received the Order-in-Original dated 31-8-2008. In view of this, we agree with the Commissioner (Appeals)’s findings that the appeal had been filed well within time and is not time-barred. - Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the merits of the case and has simply observed that he agrees with the findings of his predece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide Order-in-Appeal dated 29-8-2003 allowed the appeal. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 29-8-2003 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 948/2004, dated 7-12-2004 remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine as to whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had been filed in time with reference to the documents submitted by both the sides before the Tribunal and record his findings on the question of limitation and to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the sides. Accordingly, in remand proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter was decided vide Order-in-Appeal dated 30th May, 2005 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artmental Representative, who assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue s appeal. 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned DR and have gone through the records of this case. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has only examined the issue as to whether the appeal against the order-in-original was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) in time and has not gone into the merits of the case. On merits of the case, he has simply observed that he agrees with the findings recorded by his predecessor in the Order-in-Original dated 29-8-2003. 4. As regards the Commissioner (Appeals) s findings on the question as to whether the appeal had been filed within the limitation period, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
