Facts: Vibgyor Services filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2022 but it was rejected as time-barred by the Appellate Authority. The appellant contended that they received the Order-in-Original only on 07.03.2023, altering the commencement date for filing the appeal. However, no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim. It was revealed that the Order-in-Original was undelivered initially, with the envelope returned on 04.01.2023 with remarks indicating failure of delivery. The Department took no further steps.
Decision: The HC held that the limitation period for filing an appeal starts from the date of service, not the date of the Order-in-Original. Since the appellant received the order on 07.03.2023, the appeal filed on 22.05.2023 was within the prescribed 90 days. The Court found that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation computed from 07.03.2023, based on the admitted fact that the appellant was not served with the Order-in-Original until that date.

Facts: Vibgyor Services filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2022 but it was rejected as time-barred by the Appellate Authority. The appellant contended that they received the Order-in-Original only on 07.03.2023, altering the commencement date for filing the appeal. However, no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim. It was revealed that the Order-in-Original was undelivered initially, with the envelope returned on 04.01.2023 with remarks indicating failure of delivery. The Department took no further steps.
Decision: The HC held that the limitation period for filing an appeal starts from the date of service, not the date of the Order-in-Original. Since the appellant received the order on 07.03.2023, the appeal filed on 22.05.2023 was within the prescribed 90 days. The Court found that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation computed from 07.03.2023, based on the admitted fact that the appellant was not served with the Order-in-Original until that date.

Facts: Vibgyor Services filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2022 but it was rejected as time-barred by the Appellate Authority. The appellant contended that they received the Order-in-Original only on 07.03.2023, altering the commencement date for filing the appeal. However, no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim. It was revealed that the Order-in-Original was undelivered initially, with the envelope returned on 04.01.2023 with remarks indicating failure of delivery. The Department took no further steps.
Decision: The HC held that the limitation period for filing an appeal starts from the date of service, not the date of the Order-in-Original. Since the appellant received the order on 07.03.2023, the appeal filed on 22.05.2023 was within the prescribed 90 days. The Court found that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation computed from 07.03.2023, based on the admitted fact that the appellant was not served with the Order-in-Original until that date.

Facts: Vibgyor Services filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2022 but it was rejected as time-barred by the Appellate Authority. The appellant contended that they received the Order-in-Original only on 07.03.2023, altering the commencement date for filing the appeal. However, no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim. It was revealed that the Order-in-Original was undelivered initially, with the envelope returned on 04.01.2023 with remarks indicating failure of delivery. The Department took no further steps.
Decision: The HC held that the limitation period for filing an appeal starts from the date of service, not the date of the Order-in-Original. Since the appellant received the order on 07.03.2023, the appeal filed on 22.05.2023 was within the prescribed 90 days. The Court found that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation computed from 07.03.2023, based on the admitted fact that the appellant was not served with the Order-in-Original until that date.

Facts: Vibgyor Services filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2022 but it was rejected as time-barred by the Appellate Authority. The appellant contended that they received the Order-in-Original only on 07.03.2023, altering the commencement date for filing the appeal. However, no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim. It was revealed that the Order-in-Original was undelivered initially, with the envelope returned on 04.01.2023 with remarks indicating failure of delivery. The Department took no further steps.
Decision: The HC held that the limitation period for filing an appeal starts from the date of service, not the date of the Order-in-Original. Since the appellant received the order on 07.03.2023, the appeal filed on 22.05.2023 was within the prescribed 90 days. The Court found that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation computed from 07.03.2023, based on the admitted fact that the appellant was not served with the Order-in-Original until that date.

Facts: Vibgyor Services filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2022 but it was rejected as time-barred by the Appellate Authority. The appellant contended that they received the Order-in-Original only on 07.03.2023, altering the commencement date for filing the appeal. However, no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim. It was revealed that the Order-in-Original was undelivered initially, with the envelope returned on 04.01.2023 with remarks indicating failure of delivery. The Department took no further steps.
Decision: The HC held that the limitation period for filing an appeal starts from the date of service, not the date of the Order-in-Original. Since the appellant received the order on 07.03.2023, the appeal filed on 22.05.2023 was within the prescribed 90 days. The Court found that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation computed from 07.03.2023, based on the admitted fact that the appellant was not served with the Order-in-Original until that date.