2019 (6) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the order was either tendered to the appellant or sent by registered post with acknowledgment due or by speed post with proof of delivery or by courier. The Commissioner, therefore, could not have drawn any assumption, but the order passed by the Commissioner reveals that not only did the Commissioner assume that the order was sent to the appellant by one of the modes prescribed under Section 37C, but also assumes that it was served upon the appellant within 7 days of the passing of the order. Such an inference drawn by the Commissioner is perverse. Appeal allowed.
MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Appearance Shri Deepak Kuar Pajpai, Advocate for the appellant Shri R K Manjhi, for the respo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appealed against is 14 April, 2015. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that although the appellant had stated in the Appeal that it had received the order on 14 April, 2015, but this fact was not supported by any evidence documentary or otherwise. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that the appeal should ideally have been filed by 7 May, 2015, but the appeal was filed 63 days after this date. This appeal was, accordingly, dismissed as being time barred. 5. It is not in dispute that date of order of the Adjudicating Authority is 27 February, 2015 nor is it in dispute that the appellant had specifically stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that he had received the order on 14 April, 2015. The least the Commissioner could have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant or sent by registered post with acknowledgment due or by speed post with proof of delivery or by courier. 7. The Commissioner, therefore, could not have drawn any assumption, but the order passed by the Commissioner reveals that not only did the Commissioner assume that the order was sent to the appellant by one of the modes prescribed under Section 37C, but also assumes that it was served upon the appellant within 7 days of the passing of the order. Such an inference drawn by the Commissioner is perverse. 8. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the impugned order. It is, accordingly, set aside. The Adjudicating Authority shall now proceed to decide this issue about service of the order on the Appellant in accordance with law .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X