https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380296 The Tribunal granted the appeal, allowing it to proceed despite a 1274-day delay in filing. The delay was attributed to non-receipt of the order, supported by evidence from a dispatch register maintained by Revenue. Despite challenges to the register's accuracy, the Tribunal held that Revenue's production of it as evidence bound them to its correctness. Both parties were criticized for negligence, but the Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely recovery actions by Revenue. The Tribunal clarified the computation of the limitation period, ruling that the appeal deadline is three months from order receipt, not the order date. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380296 The Tribunal granted the appeal, allowing it to proceed despite a 1274-day delay in filing. The delay was attributed to non-receipt of the order, supported by evidence from a dispatch register maintained by Revenue. Despite challenges to the register's accuracy, the Tribunal held that Revenue's production of it as evidence bound them to its correctness. Both parties were criticized for negligence, but the Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely recovery actions by Revenue. The Tribunal clarified the computation of the limitation period, ruling that the appeal deadline is three months from order receipt, not the order date. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380296