9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month. In the present case, the appellant has claimed that the order was received from 06.10.2020 when the appellant contacted to the department after the appellant received a recovery order dated 24.09.2020 from the State Bank of India. The appeal was therefore filed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the decision. The impugned order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, deserves to be set aside and is set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall now decide the appeal on merits - appeal allowed. - SHRI DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. Anand Bhhatacharya, Advocate for the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assistant Commissioner, on information sought from him, made the following comments: In this context it is submitted that as per records available in this office the said OIO No. 16/2018-CGST-B(Dem-ST)- AC dated 02.07.2018 passed by the AC, CGST Division-B, Udaipur was dispatched from this office on 09.07.2018 vide dispatch No. 1591 and delivered to the assessee through Indian Postal Department vide speed post No. ER627780920IN and was not returned undelivered to this office. 5. After having noticed the aforesaid comments sent by the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) refers to section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but has quoted the unamended section 37C. This section was amended on 10.05.2013. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st instance, the order was not dispatched by registered post. The order was sent by speed post and under the amended section 37C, there should be proof of delivery also. In the present case, admittedly, there is no proof of delivery since what has been stated by the Assistant Commissioner in his comments is that the speed post that was sent to the appellant did not return to the office. 10. In this view of the matter, Shri Anand Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is justified in asserting that as the order was actually received by the appellant on 01.09.2018 and the period of limitation would start to run from the said date. 11. This is what was required to be examined by the Commissioner (Appeals), but the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
