2014 (1) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of Delay - Delay of 14 years Assessee contended that they did not receive the order Held that - The appellants have not shown as to what was the address given to Commissioner (Appeals) for making the correspondence - In the absence of the same, it has to be held that the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) was sent to the address which the appellant had themselves given in their memo of appeal - the appellant cannot take the benefit of its own wrong in not mentioning the correct address in their EA-2 form filed before Commissioner (Appeals) and then not making any inquiries from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) for a period of more than 12 years so as to know about the status of their appeal - This only reflects upon the casual attitude of the appellant for which no status of reasonable cause can be given to them - the appellant, never intimated the office of Commissioner (Appeals) about their new address - The appellant was duty bound to communicate their correct address to the office of Commissioner (Appeals) and the fact that the original office of Commissioner, which is admittedly different from the office of the appellate authority cannot be held to be the ground so as to fix the responsibility on the office of Commissioner (Appeals) Application for condonation of delay rejected Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with stay order.
2. Delay in filing the appeal.
3. Incorrect correspondence address provided by the appellant.
4. Failure to make inquiries about the status of the appeal.
5. Casual attitude of the appellant.
6. Rejection of COD application and stay petition.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with a stay order. The appellant claimed they were not heard before the appeal was dismissed. The appeal against this order was filed after 14 years, citing lack of receipt of the order until the Revenue approached them for dues recovery. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the appellant's contentions and found no justification for the delay in filing the appeal.

2. The appellant failed to provide the correct correspondence address in the appeal memo filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Despite citing reasons related to a court receiver taking over their factory, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument. The judgment highlighted the appellant's responsibility to ensure the correct address for correspondence. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's failure to update their address reflected a casual attitude, leading to the rejection of their COD application and stay petition as time-barred.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not make any inquiries about the status of their appeal for over 12 years. The appellant's claim of writing letters to the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed insufficient as they did not update their address with the authorities. The appellant's argument that subsequent show cause notices were sent to their new address was dismissed, emphasizing the appellant's duty to communicate any address changes to the relevant authorities.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the COD application, stay petition, and appeal as barred by limitation due to the appellant's failure to comply with procedural requirements and update their correspondence address. The judgment underscores the importance of timely compliance and active communication with the appellate authorities to avoid adverse consequences in legal proceedings.