https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258480 The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) for being filed beyond the condonable period. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of proof of delivery when serving orders under the Central Excise Act, stating that dispatching the order alone is insufficient to prove communication without evidence of receipt. As the order was only dispatched without proof of receipt, the Tribunal set aside the decision and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits, treating the appeal as filed within the limitation period once the appellant became aware of the order. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:15:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258480 The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) for being filed beyond the condonable period. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of proof of delivery when serving orders under the Central Excise Act, stating that dispatching the order alone is insufficient to prove communication without evidence of receipt. As the order was only dispatched without proof of receipt, the Tribunal set aside the decision and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits, treating the appeal as filed within the limitation period once the appellant became aware of the order. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258480