9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint lodged with the postal authority on 31.08.2013. We are convinced that the reliance placed by the first appellate authority on such a communication is incorrect to come to a conclusion that appellant had received the order-in-original not on 03.09.2013 but on 28.02.2013; Revenue is also unable to produce the acknowledgement due card of the delivery of order-in-original in the appellant’s premises - first appellate authority was not correct in dismissing the appeals on the ground of these being time-barred before him. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned orders and remand the matters back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh on merits of the case and come to a conclusion after following the principles o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t submits of having received the impugned order in his case. The appellant submits of having received the impugned order on 03.09.2013 and accordingly, filing of appeal took place on 18.09.2013. However, the concerned jurisdictional Service tax authority, on query replied that the appellant has been tendered the copy of the impugned order on 28.03.2013 itself. Hence, the appellant, in this case, should have filed the appeal on or before 27.05.2013 or by 27.06.2013, along with reasons for condonation, as would have prevailed for such a delay. However in this case the appellant has filed the present appeal on 18.09.2013. 5. On 20.08.2014, when the matter was heard, we directed the departmental representative to produce files from the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate of the appellant argued that in view of Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Vinod S. Chakor Pvt. Ltd. [AIR 1990 SC 2158] it is not coming out as to whom the said OIA was delivered. The same issue before the Supreme Court was held in favour of the appellant on the reasoning that a notice received by appellants servant cannot be treated as a service upon the appellant. It is observed from the communication dated 14-10-2012 received by the Revenue from the Postal Department that the said communication has been delivered on 25-2-2011. However it is not coming out from this communication as to whom this document was delivered. There are no signatures from the appellant produced by the Revenue to the extent that only appellant has re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
