TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. ORDER After hearing both sides, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on time-bar by observing that the same stands filed even after condonable period. 2. It is seen that the impugned order in original was passed on 17-2-2009. As per the appellant the same was not received by them. It is only subsequently when the jurisdictional Superintendent wrote letter da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate authority is barred by limitation, cannot be upheld. He submits that sole reason of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the impugned order was despatched under the cover of speed post has not received back by the postal authority. As such, it is to be presumed that the same was delivered to the appellant well in time. He draws my attention to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Margra Indu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y not be applicable to the facts of the present case unless the impugned documents were sent by registered post under registered AD cover. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the impugned order was sent under registered post. Further, the appellants by writing the letter to the Superintendent in August, 2009 have intimated to the Revenue about non-receipt of the letter. 4....