9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order-in-original was never actually received by the assessee although the same may have been delivered to the security personnel, posted at the office gate - What is important to notice here is that neither the 1st Appellate Authority nor the CESTAT had considered the merit of the appeal and both were dismissed by considering it to be time-barred. Bearing in mind the statement made in ground A( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whereby the Customs, Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata has dismissed the appeal and approved the earlier order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30-11-2011 (Annexure-D). It may be noted that the 1st Appellate Authority refused to consider the merit of the appeal, by treating the appeal to be time-barred. 3. The Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwaha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s within the permissible period, prescribed by Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. However the Appellate Authority opined that the original order was delivered by Regd. Post on 7-8-2010 and therefore the limitation period was counted from that date and on that basis, the appeal was declared to be barred by time and was not considered on merit. 5. While entertainment of appeal beyond the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed to the petitioner. 7. What is important to notice here is that neither the 1st Appellate Authority nor the CESTAT had considered the merit of the appeal and both were dismissed by considering it to be time-barred. Bearing in mind the statement made in ground A(2) of the memo of appeal, we hold that computation of limitation period made by the 1st Appellate Authority was erroneous. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
