2026 (2) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocate For the Respondent : Shri A.P.S. Parihar, Superintendent, Authorised Representative ORDER: In this appeal Appellant has challenged the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Mumbai only on the ground of limitation. 2. Fact of the case, in a nut shell, is that Appellant is a service provider working in SEZ (Special Economy Zone) fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llenging the legality of the said order. 3. During course of hearing of appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Mayur Jain, with reference to judicial decision reported in 2016 (6) TMI 996-Rajasthan (HC) in the case of M/s. RR Casting Private Limited Vs. CESTAT, New Delhi on 13.05.2016 and in the case of Shridhar Construction Vs. CST,- Service Tax-Ahmedabad reported in 2023 (2) TMI 233 (C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h of delay. 4. In response to such submission, learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department Mr. A.P.S. Parihar submitted that Appellant itself has mentioned in its appeal memo that Order-in-Original was received by them on 17.12.2018 at the factory and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) had, in following judicial precedent set by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....computation period should commence from the date of receipt of the order of the Adjudicating Authority. In the instant case the relied upon decisions, as noted above are placed on record by the Appellant have not dealt with any kind of sufficiency/insufficiency of service of the order (OIO) which has been delivered at the factory gate. Though Appellant had not produced the copy of COD application ....