https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248125 The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, citing the appellant filed after the condonable period. The appellant argued they only learned of the impugned order after being directed by the Superintendent to deposit the disputed amount. They challenged the finding that the order was delivered on time via speed post, referencing legal judgments. The Tribunal remanded the case to investigate the factual aspects of the order's delivery, allowing the appellant to contest the presumption of delivery and seek information from the postal authority. en-us Wed, 02 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248125 The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, citing the appellant filed after the condonable period. The appellant argued they only learned of the impugned order after being directed by the Superintendent to deposit the disputed amount. They challenged the finding that the order was delivered on time via speed post, referencing legal judgments. The Tribunal remanded the case to investigate the factual aspects of the order's delivery, allowing the appellant to contest the presumption of delivery and seek information from the postal authority. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 02 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248125