9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whom the adjudication order was served. Mere dispatch of the order may not result in inference that it was served on the appellant. It should be addressed to the right addressee. There is no finding to that effect. Had the department verified the address of the addressee from envelope containing the order and caused an inquiry, truth would have been discovered to reach to a conclusion that the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate For the Respondent : Shri R. Subramaniyam, AC (AR) ORDER Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. Appellants contention is that the adjudication order which had granted concession to the appellant was not served on the appellant on 18.3.2009 at all. Therefore, it obtained a copy of the order from the adjudicating authority on 21.12.2009 and exercised the option to discharg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel submits that due to delay in service of the adjudication order, which was received by it on 21.12.2009, the appellant discharged tax liability as well as concessional penalty by 31.12.2009. But the department alleges that the concessional penalty was not discharged by 17.4.2009 since the adjudication order was dispatched on 18.3.2009. 5. The appellate authority has co-existence and co-term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. In absence of any inquiry, appellant gets benefit of doubt of the service of the order upon it not earlier to 21.12.2009. When the order came to the knowledge of assessee, upon service, the crucial date for it to discharge penalty was 21.12.2009 and 30 days therefrom was to be reckoned. 7. As stated above, in absence of any inquiry about the service of the adjudication order on the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
