9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. [Order]. This order will dispose of COD application moved by the appellants seeking condonation of delay of one year, seven months and twenty days in filing the appeal. The impugned order-in-appeal was passed on 10-5-2000, whereas the appeal was filed on 9th August, 2002. The COD application was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 4-2-2003 after hearing both sides. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be pasted on the outer door of their factory premises and that service of the order was not proper. The appellants received the copy of the order only on 23-7-2002 and from that, the appeal is within time. He has referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court to support his contention in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dr. K.C. Verma, 2003 (132) TAXMAN 598 (Delhi). 3. On t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, no address was furnished by the appellants to the Department for communication/correspondence purposes. They only intimated regarding the closure of their unit. Under these circumstances, when the appellants did not furnish any address after the closure of their unit, the Department had no option but to paste the copy of the impugned order-in-appeal, on the outer door of their factory premises. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order against them in May, 2000. No intimation in writing was sent by them to the Department that the impugned order-in-appeal should be conveyed to them at a particular address, after the conclusion of the hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, it is difficult to hold that there was no proper service of the impugned order-in-appeal on the appellants. Consequently, I do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
