https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775007 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal by way of remand. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal as time-barred, concluding it was filed beyond the limitation period based on a jurisdictional office report stating the Order-in-Original was dispatched via speed post on 04.10.2023, while the appeal was filed on 16.01.2024. CESTAT held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred by assuming the dispatch date as the communication date without requiring the department to prove actual delivery to the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) also failed to provide the appellant an opportunity to demonstrate non-receipt within the prescribed time. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to decide on merits after providing proper hearing opportunity and pass a reasoned order within two months. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:22:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775007 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal by way of remand. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal as time-barred, concluding it was filed beyond the limitation period based on a jurisdictional office report stating the Order-in-Original was dispatched via speed post on 04.10.2023, while the appeal was filed on 16.01.2024. CESTAT held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred by assuming the dispatch date as the communication date without requiring the department to prove actual delivery to the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) also failed to provide the appellant an opportunity to demonstrate non-receipt within the prescribed time. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to decide on merits after providing proper hearing opportunity and pass a reasoned order within two months. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775007