https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384237 The Court set aside the rejection of the revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to a delay of 1005 days. It held that the burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish the timely receipt of the order, which was not proven. The Court found the application was filed within the prescribed time and directed its restoration for consideration on merits. The decision favored the Petitioner, emphasizing the importance of proper evidence and burden of proof in such cases. en-us Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384237 The Court set aside the rejection of the revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to a delay of 1005 days. It held that the burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish the timely receipt of the order, which was not proven. The Court found the application was filed within the prescribed time and directed its restoration for consideration on merits. The decision favored the Petitioner, emphasizing the importance of proper evidence and burden of proof in such cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384237