TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 ground that it ought to have been filed under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 considered 4th January to be the starting date for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etter 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.41 of 2016 is concerned, there is admittedly a delay....