<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (3) TMI 1203 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405875</link>
    <description>Registered-post acknowledgment creates only a rebuttable presumption of service for limitation purposes. Where the addressee denies receipt and supports that denial by affidavit, the department must prove that the person who signed the acknowledgment was authorised by, or known to, the appellant; failing that, communication of the adjudication order is not established and limitation cannot be computed against the appellant on that basis. The Tribunal also held that a jurisdictional objection based on the baggage restriction did not bar an appeal directed only against the limitation order. The time-bar dismissal was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for consideration of delay and disposal on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=640418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 1203 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405875</link>
      <description>Registered-post acknowledgment creates only a rebuttable presumption of service for limitation purposes. Where the addressee denies receipt and supports that denial by affidavit, the department must prove that the person who signed the acknowledgment was authorised by, or known to, the appellant; failing that, communication of the adjudication order is not established and limitation cannot be computed against the appellant on that basis. The Tribunal also held that a jurisdictional objection based on the baggage restriction did not bar an appeal directed only against the limitation order. The time-bar dismissal was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for consideration of delay and disposal on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>