https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364687 The judgment involved appeals related to a fire incident at the appellant's factory, resulting in destruction of goods and requests for remission of duty. Appeals were rejected for being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. One specific appeal filed in 2011, claiming the order was communicated in October 2011, was found time-barred as it was communicated in 2003. Despite a change of address notification, the impugned order was sent to the old address. The judgment set aside all impugned orders, remanding them for fresh decisions to ensure proper verification of communication processes and adherence to legal timelines. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Aug 2018 08:32:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364687 The judgment involved appeals related to a fire incident at the appellant's factory, resulting in destruction of goods and requests for remission of duty. Appeals were rejected for being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. One specific appeal filed in 2011, claiming the order was communicated in October 2011, was found time-barred as it was communicated in 2003. Despite a change of address notification, the impugned order was sent to the old address. The judgment set aside all impugned orders, remanding them for fresh decisions to ensure proper verification of communication processes and adherence to legal timelines. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364687