Tribunal remands case for verification of order receipt date, emphasizing natural justice principles.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify the actual date of receipt of the Order-In-Original (OIO). If the claim was verified, the Commissioner was instructed to proceed on merits, ensuring adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further proceedings, considering the appellant's timely filing based on the corrected date of receipt of the OIO.

---

---

Issues:
1. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed amounts.
2. Timeliness of appeal filing under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Discrepancy in dates of receipt of Order-In-Original (OIO).
4. Verification of factual matrix and remand for further proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed amounts, which were upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed due to alleged belated filing not in accordance with Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, determined that the appeal could be disposed of promptly as the issue was narrow. Upon allowing the waiver application, the Tribunal proceeded to take up the appeal for disposal.

3. The appellant's counsel highlighted a factual discrepancy regarding the date of receipt of the OIO. While the Commissioner (Appeals) stated the receipt date as 01.04.2010, evidence presented by the appellant indicated the actual receipt on 28.05.2010. The Departmental Representative raised the issue of verification, pointing out that the appellant declared the receipt date as 01.04.2010 in the ST-4 form.

4. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal concluded that if the appellant received the order on 28.05.2010 and filed the appeal on 05.07.2010, the appeal was timely. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to verify the actual date of receipt of the OIO. The Commissioner was instructed to proceed on merits if the claim was verified, ensuring adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the case comprehensively, covering the stay petition, timeliness of appeal filing, discrepancy in dates, and the subsequent remand for verification and further proceedings.

---