Appeal dismissed for late filing; proof of registered mail delivery upheld; failure to provide report violated natural justice.

The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal due to being filed beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that proof of sending a post through registered mail constitutes delivery unless disproved by the addressee. It was noted that the failure to provide a crucial report to the appellant violated principles of natural justice. As there was uncertainty regarding the receipt of the order-in-original and acknowledgment due status, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, ensuring a fair process for all parties involved.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Consideration of receipt vs. dispatch of order-in-original.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal based on the ground of limitation. The original adjudicating authority had issued the order-in-original on a specific date, but the appeal along with the stay application was filed after a significant delay of more than ten years. The appellant claimed they were unaware of the adjudication order until they received a letter for recovery of dues. The Tribunal observed that the Assistant Commissioner had confirmed the dispatch of the order-in-original through registered post, and the appellant had changed addresses without notifying the department. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that proof of sending a post through registered mail is considered as delivery unless proven otherwise by the addressee.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the report of the Assistant Commissioner, crucial for the case, was not shared with the appellant, violating principles of natural justice. The report did not specify the date of receipt of the order-in-original, and it was unclear whether the acknowledgment due for the order was received back by the Revenue. The advocate contended that the focus should be on the actual receipt of the order rather than its dispatch. The Tribunal agreed that the failure to provide the report to the appellant deprived them of the opportunity to contest it, thus warranting a violation of natural justice.

3. Considering the lack of disclosure regarding the receipt of the order-in-original and the absence of acknowledgment due status in the report, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order should be set aside. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, allowing the appellant to present their arguments based on relevant case law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing the report to the appellant and granting them an opportunity to defend their position. Both the stay petition and the appeal were disposed of accordingly, ensuring a fair and just process for all parties involved.

---