https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261389 The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of the order-in-appeal, emphasizing the need for proof of delivery for service fulfillment. The delay was considered justified as the department lacked acknowledgment of delivery. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of proof of delivery under Section 37C(2) and remanded the issue of CENVAT credit denial on cars purchased from unregistered dealers for fresh adjudication, focusing on document verification and eligibility for credit abatement. The matter was sent back to the original adjudicating authority for a reevaluation, granting the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:33:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261389 The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of the order-in-appeal, emphasizing the need for proof of delivery for service fulfillment. The delay was considered justified as the department lacked acknowledgment of delivery. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of proof of delivery under Section 37C(2) and remanded the issue of CENVAT credit denial on cars purchased from unregistered dealers for fresh adjudication, focusing on document verification and eligibility for credit abatement. The matter was sent back to the original adjudicating authority for a reevaluation, granting the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261389