https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774574 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal by condoning delay in filing. The Department claimed the original order was dispatched on 02.11.2023 and delivered on 04.11.2013 via RPAD, making the appeal filed on 13.08.2014 beyond the condonable period. However, appellants contended they received the uncertified copy only on 04.07.2014 and filed an affidavit stating non-receipt before that date, citing irregular postal delivery. The tribunal found the Department failed to produce postal acknowledgment despite claiming dispatch. Considering the appellant's affidavit and principle that parties gain nothing by delaying appeals, the delay was condoned. The matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits within 12 weeks. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:39:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774574 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal by condoning delay in filing. The Department claimed the original order was dispatched on 02.11.2023 and delivered on 04.11.2013 via RPAD, making the appeal filed on 13.08.2014 beyond the condonable period. However, appellants contended they received the uncertified copy only on 04.07.2014 and filed an affidavit stating non-receipt before that date, citing irregular postal delivery. The tribunal found the Department failed to produce postal acknowledgment despite claiming dispatch. Considering the appellant's affidavit and principle that parties gain nothing by delaying appeals, the delay was condoned. The matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits within 12 weeks. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774574