TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal remanded for decision on delivery date. Revenue burden of proof. Commissioner (Appeals) further proceedings.</h1> <h3>M/s Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Suat-I</h3> M/s Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Suat-I - TMI Issues: Appeal against dismissal on grounds of time barAnalysis:The appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal on the ground of time bar. The original order sanctioning rebate and confirming demand was issued on 17.09.2014, with the appeal filed on 26.07.2016. The appellant contended that they did not receive the original order until 02.06.2016, and hence the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without verifying the delivery of the original order. The appellant relied on the judgment of Admannum Packaging Ltd. 2018 (7) TMI 259-CESTAT New Delhi to support their case.The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue maintained that the appellant failed to provide evidence that they did not receive the original order in 2014, as they received a copy on 02.06.2016. The Revenue argued that the receipt of a cheque in 2014 indicated that the original order was indeed delivered to the appellant in 2014 itself.After hearing both parties, the Member (Judicial) found that while the order was issued on 17.09.2014, the appellant claimed to have received the zerox copy only on 02.06.2016, leading to the appeal being filed on 26.07.2016. It was observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal without verifying the actual delivery date of the original order. The Member (Judicial) emphasized that without confirming the dispatch and delivery of the original order, a determination on the timeliness of the appeal cannot be made. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision based on the actual delivery date of the order to the appellant. If the Revenue fails to produce evidence, the receipt of the order by the appellant should be considered as 02.06.2016. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
