9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER Heard both sides. 2. The lower Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the appellants on the ground that the appeal was not preferred within the prescribed time-limit of the Order-in-Original dated 2-9-02. The lower Appellate Authority has also held that even if the Order-in-Original is held to have been received by the appellants on 16-10-03, even then there is a delay of five da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the postal authorities showing the serial number and date of accepting the speed post has not been produced by the Department, despite opportunity given. As such, the Department has failed to prove that the Order dated 2-9-02 has been served in 2002 in terms of Section 153 of the Act. 4.1 In view of the above, there is no alternative, but to accept that the Order-in-Original was received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstance. Accordingly, Order of the lower Appellate Authority rejecting the application for condonation of delay cannot be upheld and the same is set aside. 5. Learned S.D.R. has argued at length relying on the counter-affidavit filed by the Department that the appellants had submitted necessary documents much after filing of the refund claim and hence, there was no delay in sanctioning the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
