9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iously holds that a case for condonation is not made out, which conclusion even in an view is not an unreasonable conclusion then in a matter like this we are very clear that in the exercise of an jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, such an order cannot be quashed or set aside. - 32862 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2010 - D.V. Shylendra Kumar and N. Ananda, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Ms. Shwetha for M/s. Murali Co., Advocates, for the Appellant. [Order per D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.]. - Writ petition by an assessee under the Finance Act, 1994, directed against the order dated 25-6-2009 [copy at Annexure-G] passed in Appeal No. ST/496/08 by the Customs, Excise and Ser vice Tax Appellate Tribunal, So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the very service of the notice of the passing of the order and the order itself on the petitioner-company as, according to the petitioner, the service of notice of the passing of the order and the order on said Priyaranjan is not a proper/sufficient service on the petitioner- company and at any rate the order was not within the knowledge of the petitioner-company and in the circumstance the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and the appeal should have been entertained on merits. 5. The Tribunal, which looked into the explanation offered in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking for condonation of delay, found that there is no denial on the part of the petitioner-company about the service of order upon a person who was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a sequel of the dismissal of the application and also the appeal. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is justified in observing as to in what manner the petitioner-company runs its business is its own concern and that cannot be accepted as a legitimate or bonafide reason for seeking a delay of 229 days in preferring the appeal. 10. That apart, though it is sought to be urged that the petitioner-company was genuinely ignorant of the order of the commissioner having come into existence, as the said Priyaranjan was on contract basis in the services of the petitioner-company and he left the job and his whereabouts were not known and such circumstances is sought to be urged as a factor which should have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
