9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to receive the said speed post. We fully agree with learned A.R. that it is only when the actual receipt is in doubt then the fact of sending the impugned order by Registered A.D., would arise. When there is a proof of delivery of the order, the fact that it was sent by speed post and not by registered A.D, will not have any effect on the situation. As such, we conclude that the order-in-original having been received by the appellant on 12.1.2013, the appeal filed on 9.10.2013 is admittedly beyond the normal period of limitation and also beyond the condonable period of one month which the Commissioner (Appeals) is rested with power - Condonation denied. - ST/Stay/21911/2014 in ST/21725/2014-DB - Final Order No. 21667 / 2015 - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as regards the date of receipt of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. 3. Revenue has produced the above postal receipt showing the delivery of the order to the appellant on 12.1.2013 under the official stamp of the company and signature of the recipient. The appellant is not disputing the factum of the said postal receipt showing receipt of the order on 12.1.2013 but submits that the same was not delivered to a responsible person of the company. It is further contention of learned advocate that the order should have been sent by Registered AD, as held by various courts. The further plea of the appellant is that the said order received by a non-authorised person of the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the said person was not their employee and not authorized to receive the said speed post. We fully agree with learned A.R. that it is only when the actual receipt is in doubt then the fact of sending the impugned order by Registered A.D., would arise. When there is a proof of delivery of the order, the fact that it was sent by speed post and not by registered A.D, will not have any effect on the situation. As such, we conclude that the order-in-original having been received by the appellant on 12.1.2013, the appeal filed on 9.10.2013 is admittedly beyond the normal period of limitation and also beyond the condonable period of one month which the Commissioner (Appeals) is rested with power. As regards non-intimation of the order to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
