Case Law Details
Shree Developers Vs Commissioner CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the subsequent service of the order copy to the appellant is the date of communication of the order-in-original to the appellant.
Facts- The present appeal is directed against order-in-appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal as time-barred on the ground that the order-in-original was received by authorised representative of the appellant on 02.11.2018 and the appeal was required to be filed within two months from 02.11.2018 i.e. by 01.01.2019 but the appeal was filed on 19.09.2022. Accordingly, the delay is more than three years and the same is time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) also contended that since the service of order was made to authorised representative it is proper and legal service of order in terms of Section 37C therefore, the date of receipt of order by the authorised representative is to be taken as date of communication of the order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal the appellant filed the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the subsequent service of the order copy to the appellant on 22.07.2022 is the date of communication of the order-in-original to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed on 19.09.2022 is well within the prescribed time limit of two months (60days), therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a fresh order on merits of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
