TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per Justice Shri R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Heard ld. DR for the appellants and ld. Advocate for the respondent. 2. This appeal arises from the Order dasted 31.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-I. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh order after considering the respondent#s claim of abatement. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived by the appellants on 20.04.2005. The authorisation for filing the appeal was issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I. The authorisation letter does not bear the date on which the same was issued. Considering these aspects and taking into consideration the provisions of law comprised under Section 35 (B)(2) of the said Act, the ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20.04.2005 and 15.07.2005. 7. Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the Court may presume that the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. The Court may also presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere was sufficient time for the authorities to apply its mind and decide about the need to file the appeal. It is also to be noted that the appeal is essentially on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter. In these circumstances, in the absence of sufficient material on record to rebut the presumption about official acts having been performed in regula....