Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2009 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (6) TMI 664 - CESTAT, MUMBAIStay Application - Provisions comprised under Section 37-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Limitation - It is not in dispute that the letter nowhere stated that the signatures, which were found on the copies, were of the persons employed in the appellants’ company or that the persons who had signed and received the copies had done so on behalf of the company - Indeed, the Assistant Commissioner could not have stated so because the endorsement neither discloses the same nor it is the case of the respondent that the author of the letter dated 11th June, 2007 had himself served the copy of the order upon the appellants - He had no personal knowledge about the actual service of the copy of the order upon the appellants - The records on the face of it did not disclose anything more than signatures of some person on the copies of the orders - There was no cogent material available before the Commissioner (Appeals) to hold that the copies of the orders were really served upon the appellants on 2nd August, 2000 and 16th September, 2000 - Hence, the records that the copies were received for the first time on 19th July, 2006 and the appeals were filed on 7th September, 2006, they were filed within the period of limitation and, therefore, it was necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the appeals on merits - Decided in favour of assessee.
|