2017 (2) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant : Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL) These are appeals under Section 35 (G) of the Central Excise Act against the order of the CESTAT. Both the appeals were dismissed on the ground that they were filed beyond the period of limitation. In CEA No.41 of 2016, the appellant's appeal was also dismissed on the groun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tends that the order was received only on 07.01.2013. If that is so, the appeal will be within time. The order was admittedly sent by RPAD. It is reasonable to presume that the same would not have been received by the assessee on the same date. The dispute is only of two days. The Tribunal ought to have at least asked the Department to produce the RPAD receipt. The Tribunal should not have conside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to presume that in the ordinary course of post, a letter sent RPAD would have been delivered three days later. This is a statutory presumption. It was therefore for the Department to have proved otherwise. The question of law so far as CEA No.40 is concerned, is therefore answered in favour of the appellant. The appeal shall now be heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. As far as CEA No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re the Commissioner (Appeals) itself. CEA No.41 of 2016 is therefore disposed of by setting aside the order and by granting the petitioner an opportunity of filing an application for condonation of delay which shall be considered if the same is filed within four weeks from today. The next issue which arises only in CEA No.41 of 2016 is whether the appeal ought to have been filed under the Fi....