9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree alternative dates in the same intimation. It is clear that order-in-original was received by appellant only on 10th August 2013 and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority - No purpose will be served by remanding the matter back to the first appellate authority when the original authority had not afforded the appellant a proper opportunity to counter the grounds for the proposed rejection of the claim for rebate - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/EH/40943/2015 In ST/42565/13 - Final Order No. 42252/2016 - Dated:- 18-7-2016 - Shri P.R. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate - for Appellant Shri M. Balanuryan, (A.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the Department of Posts dated 26th July 2013 that the said article was not served on them. 5. We have heard Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorized Representative. We have also seen the various communication furnished by the appellant. We find that the appellant was not in receipt of the communication of the order-in-original sent by speed post and that, it was based on certification issued by postal authorities, that the order was sent to appellant on 10th August 2013. The appeal was filed immediately thereafter. 6. It is common ground that appellant was not heard before the claim was rejected by the original authority and that appellant, having appeared for hearing on 9th March 2012, was informed about the non-ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the three days precluded any contingency of further adjournment. The spirit of the principles of natural justice has been disregarded in an unwonted manner. 9. The completion of proceedings by the original authority without affording sufficient opportunity to notice is unseemly. That has been compounded by failure to serve the adjudication order in accordance with the legally sanctified process. It is clear that order-in-original was received by appellant only on 10th August 2013 and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. Rejection of the appeal on grounds of limitation was not proper. 9. No purpose will be served by remanding the matter back to the first appellate authority when the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
