AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None present for the appellant nor is there any adjournment application. Appeal is of four years old.
When the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that the appeal came on record on 10.2.2009, while Order- in-Original was passed on 4.8.08 and
served on the appellant on 7.8.2008. There was no evidence before him as to the filing of appeal duly for which he concluded that appeal was barred
by limitation in view of delay of 127 days. When there was no reason given to the Commissioner (Appeals) as to the delay, he dismissed the appeal.
Law is well settled that statutory authority cannot be compelled to pass order beyond limitation.
There is an affidavit on record. There is no dispute by the appellant as to the date of service of order-in-original. Only plea of the appellant is that
appeal papers were sent on 17.09.2008 by courier. Courier receipt is available on page 19 of appeal folder. That revealed that the date is not
mentioned correctly in the courier receipt. There is overwriting of date. This clearly shows that courier receipt is only a medium with afterthought pear
to satisfy records that appeal paper was sent by courier. Courier receipt appears to be fabricated document which cannot be accepted as a cogent
evidence in the eyes of law. Appellant is not having any other evidence as to the obtaining of acknowledgement of office of Commissioner (Appeals)
in respect of filing of appeal. Learned Authority was therefore correct to dismiss the appeal being barred by limitation. Accordingly present appeal is
not maintainable and same is dismissed.