9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed the appeal observing that it is time-barred and also noting that the Order-in-Original was received and acknowledged by the appellant on 10.2.2011. However, on perusal of records, we do not find any document to show that the appellant has been served with the copy of the Order-in-Original dated 10.2.2011. Though the Bench directed the department to produce documents to prove that the Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 2010. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty. The appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the same was rejected on the ground of being time-barred. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, proxy consultant Shri R Rajaram appeared and argued the matter. It is submitted by him that the order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) reached the conclusion that there is delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted by the consultant that though the Bench had directed the department to produce proof of delivery so as to establish that the order was served upon the appellant, they have not been able to do so. The appellant has not received the Order-in-Original dated 27.1.2011 and hence there is no delay in filing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the copy of the Order-in-Original dated 10.2.2011. Though the Bench directed the department to produce documents to prove that the Order-in-Original has been served to the appellant, they have not been able to do so. Taking note of this fact, we are of the opinion that the appellant has to be given a chance to contest the case on merits. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
