https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54575 The Tribunal remanded the case for de novo adjudication as the Assistant Commissioner failed to pass a speaking and appealable order, disregarding the appellant's requests. The limitation period for filing an appeal was determined to start from the date of clarification, not the original communication, allowing the timely filing of the appeal. The communication from the Superintendent was deemed not to constitute an order or decision, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clear communication and passing speaking orders to avoid confusion regarding limitation periods for appeals. en-us Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:50:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54575 The Tribunal remanded the case for de novo adjudication as the Assistant Commissioner failed to pass a speaking and appealable order, disregarding the appellant's requests. The limitation period for filing an appeal was determined to start from the date of clarification, not the original communication, allowing the timely filing of the appeal. The communication from the Superintendent was deemed not to constitute an order or decision, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clear communication and passing speaking orders to avoid confusion regarding limitation periods for appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54575