9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara Narayanan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against Order-in-Appeal No. MAD-CEX-000-APP-042-15 dated 19.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Coimbatore camp at Madurai, whereby the First Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal as time-barred, but wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the seal of the postal authorities for delivery as 13.11.2014, which itself is sufficient proof against the Revenue's claim for having served the order on 11.11.2014 as found in the impugned order, etc. 3. Per contra, Shri. L. Nandakumar, Learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities. 4. We have heard both sides and gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot helping us in any way but rather is creating more confusion. The date of despatch as per the above is 15.11.2014, but the date of receipt is 13.11.2014! In view of this and on an overall analysis of the submissions of both the parties and the documents placed by either side, it is clear to us that the Revenue has not been able to establish the date of receipt by the recipient and hence, we have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
