2024 (2) TMI 617

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sinha, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : M. M. Parthiban The issue in the dispute has been decided in the impugned order dated 30.09.2010, i.e. order passed in an appeal filed before the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Mumbai only on the basis of time limit in respect of refunds claim filed before the original authority, by holding that the appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds of the case. 4. I find that the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 deals with the Order-in-Original No. ME/REF/DC/RY/666-667/2017-18 rejecting the two refund claims filed by the appellant and the same was signed by the Deputy Commissioner (Refund) indicating the date of his signature as 28th February. On the face of the said Order-in-Original at the preamble page in the entry against "the date of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is factual on account of the failure on the part of the appellant. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of G. Muthukumar Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 525 (Madras), to support his contention that in the absence of any evidence of receipt o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 60 days time. In the absence of any evidence or documents produced by the Department for dispatch of the original order and its receipt by the appellant; or by any independent evidence, such as records of the postal authorities to support the same, I am unable to accept the stand taken in the impugned order that the original order was sent in time and the delay in filing appeal is on account of ....