9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .D. Joshi, Supdt. (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal and stay application are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PVR/113/NGP/2012 dated 9-10-2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur. 2. A service tax demand of Rs. 6,83,903/- was confirmed against the appellant M/s. D.R. Meghe, Nagpur, vide Order-in-Original No. 28/SPM/ADC/ ST/2011, dated 29-3-2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons for the delay and accordingly he dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, as time barred. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The ld. Consultant for the appellant submits that they had not received the order said to have been sent by speed post by the department on 5-4-2011. Only when the recovery proceedings were initiated, they became aware of the order and they obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Original was sent by speed post on 5-4-2011 and therefore, the appellant ought to have received it immediately thereafter. However, he concedes that the appeal was filed within the condonable period of three months after the expiry of the statutory time limit of three months of filing the appeal. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. 5.1 From the record it is seen that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
