9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the ground of time bar. The brief facts of the case are that the order in original whereby the rebate was sanctioned and appropriated against the same confirmed demand was issued on 17.09.2014 against which the appeal was filed on 26.07.2016. 2. Sh. S. Suriyanarayanan, Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -CESTAT New Delhi. 3. Sh. T.K. Sikdar, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant could not submit any evidence that they have not received the order 17.09.2014 but they received the copy on 02.06.2016, therefore, the submission that the order copy was received on 02.06.2016 is without any basis. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter on merit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter only after ascertaining the fact that when the order was delivered to the appellant. If the Revenue is failed to produce any evidence then in that case the receipt of the order by the appellant should be considered as 02.06.2016 only. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
