Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Rakesh Kumar Jethani Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur

2016 (6) TMI 364 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Period of limitation - Appellant did not received the order and came to know about the same when Revenue approached them for recovery of dues - Appeal filed within period of limitation from date of receipt of order - Held that:- the examination of the dispatch register as produced before us which shows incomplete address of the consignee as also the fact that the valued stamp fixed on the same was only ₹ 12/-. It would negate the Revenue s contention of the order having been sent either un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No. 51262 of 2014 in Appeal No. 51091 of 2014 - Final Order No. 51151/2016 - Dated:- 5-4-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rajeev Gupta and K. Poddar, Authorized Representative (JCDR/DR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per. Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the sides we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this interim stage, after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, in a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

filed by them on 04/6/2012 i.e. within the limitation period from date of receipt of the order. However, Commissioner (Appeals) in his present impugned order has observed that order-in-original was sent by the Department to the appellant through registered AD on the appellant s postal address i.e. Shri Ramesh Kumar Jethani, 454, Near Sinshi Gurudwara, Bees Dukan Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. He further observed that in as much as the order sent under registered AD has not been received back by the Reve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndicating that the order-in-original was sent by speed post. 5. We find that there is contradiction in the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has observed that the order was sent by registered AD and Deputy Commissioner has contended in the said letter that the same was sent by speed post. We have further examined the dispatch register, produced by the Revenue. Against Sl. No. 171 it shows the dispatch of the order. However, the address as reflected in the said dispatch register .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version