1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Order Set Aside, Case Remanded for Fresh Decision</h1> The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing the appellants with an ... - Issues Involved: Appeal rejection due to delay, non-receipt of order-in-original, violation of principles of natural justice, interpretation of dispatch by speed post.Appeal Rejection Due to Delay: The appeal was rejected as it was filed beyond the condonable period of delay, following the decision in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE, Jamshedpur. The delay was considered not condonable, leading to the rejection of the appeal.Non-Receipt of Order-in-Original: The appellant claimed that they did not receive the order dispatched on 01.11.2012 and only became aware of it when a copy was given to them on 10.07.2013. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed in time on 05.08.2013. However, the Revenue stated that the order was dispatched on 01.11.2012 and the appellant's claim was different. The Commissioner found that the order was dispatched and not returned undelivered, rejecting the appellant's claim of non-receipt.Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant was not given an opportunity to explain their case based on the report by the Additional Commissioner. This lack of opportunity for the appellant to present their case was seen as a violation of principles of natural justice, especially since the delivery status of the letter was uncertain.Interpretation of Dispatch by Speed Post: The argument was made that dispatch by speed post should be considered sufficient for delivery. However, the introduction of speed post as a mode of delivery in the Central Excise Act raised questions about the proper mode of delivery. Section 37C was referenced, suggesting that deemed delivery date should align with the actual delivery date. The issue was deemed legal, requiring different interpretations and a better understanding of the facts and application of the law.Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing the appellants with an opportunity to present their case. The need for a reconsideration of the issue was emphasized to ensure a fair process and proper application of the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
