https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375726 Valid service of an order-in-original required proof of delivery in the manner prescribed by the governing provision; mere dispatch particulars and postal receipts were insufficient, so the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be treated as time-barred on the basis of alleged September 2017 service. The statutory pre-deposit requirement was also satisfied because the disputed amount had already been recovered from the appellant's bank account and transferred to the revenue authorities, so rejection for non-deposit of the prescribed percentage was not justified. The dismissal of the appeal was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits. en-us Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Feb 2019 05:23:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375726 Valid service of an order-in-original required proof of delivery in the manner prescribed by the governing provision; mere dispatch particulars and postal receipts were insufficient, so the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be treated as time-barred on the basis of alleged September 2017 service. The statutory pre-deposit requirement was also satisfied because the disputed amount had already been recovered from the appellant's bank account and transferred to the revenue authorities, so rejection for non-deposit of the prescribed percentage was not justified. The dismissal of the appeal was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375726