9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Jasmeet Kaur, Advocate for the appellant Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY: There is a delay of 512 days in preferring the appeal against order-in-original dated 15.09.2017. 2. Heard Ms. Jasmeet Kaur, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the respondent. 3. Learned Counsel Ms. Jasmeet Kaur f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19, according to which the impugned order as per despatch docket No. 18909 was despatched by speed post on 19.09.2017 under speed post No. ED 324447374 IN. Further, the said despatch was not returned by the post office undelivered. Accordingly, there is presumption of service, copy of the despatch register and the speed post receipt is also annexed with the report. Accordingly, he states that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement due as proof of delivery. Prima facie, it appears probable that the appellant did not receive the impugned order, and could know about the said order, only in August, 2018, when they received the recovery notice. We further find that the case laws relied upon by the Revenue are not applicable in the facts of the present case as the facts are different particularly in those cases, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
