2025 (7) TMI 1076

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Garg, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Yashpal Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER S. S. GARG : The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of CGST (Appeals), whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant on limitation. 2. Briefly stated facts of case are that the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibed time limit before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). On 25.08.2023, when the appellant got a call from the office of CGST Division, Yamunanagar informing about the order passed against them, the appellant wrote a letter to the Assistant Commissioner to provide them the copy of the Order-in-Original. Thereafter, the appellant got the copy of the Order-in-Original on 07.11.2023 through email a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the appellant; but the actual date of delivery has not been proved by the department. He further submits that in the absence of discharge of burden of service of order, it is wrong to presume that the order was delivered in January 2022. 4.2 The learned Counsel further submits that the Order-in-Original dated 25.01.2022 was never received by the appellant and therefore, they could not file th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the department reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the adjudicating authority passed the Order-in-Original on 25.01.2022 which was never received by the appellant as no proof of receipt of the order has be....