TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to how the First Appellate Authority has recorded as to having seen that the appellant had received the Order-in-Original on 11.11.2014, which is nobody s case. The stand of the Revenue that the appellant has received the Order-in-Original, based on the endorsement of the postal authorities, is not helping us in any way but rather is creating more confusion. The date of despatch as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing the principles of natural justice - appeal partly allowed, by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 42025 of 2015 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40084/2020 - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - MR. C. J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. Sankara Narayanan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. L. Nandakumar, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, was given only a photocopy which contained the despatch seal evidencing despatch on 11.11.2014; that the acknowledgement furnished by the Revenue contains the date of despatch as 15.11.2014 whereas the acknowledgement allegedly containing the recipient s signature contains the seal of the postal authorities for delivery as 13.11.2014, which itself is sufficient proof against the Revenue s c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogether. 6. Revenue has not been able to prove the date of receipt which is vital for reckoning the period of limitation for filing the first appeal. The stand of the Revenue that the appellant has received the Order-in-Original, based on the endorsement of the postal authorities, is not helping us in any way but rather is creating more confusion. The date of despatch as per the above is 15.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
