9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5.2008 wherein it has been mentioned at paragraph 8 that "due to non-cooperation of other partner, I have temporarily stopped the business." It is not the case of the appellant that they have intimated a new address for communication to the department. The reply dated 24.5.2008 also contained the same address as to which the order-in-original was despatched. Further, it is not in dispute that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doned. 3. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, the appeal before the Tribunal is taken up for summary disposal after dispensing with the pre-deposit of the dues as per the impugned. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant's business firm/premises were closed since April 2008 and there was no proper service of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led reply dated 24.5.2008; that they have received personal hearing intimation for hearing fixed on 16.6.2008; that they have attended the personal hearing on 16.6.2008. He also produced copy of acknowledgment which indicates that the appellant has received the Order-in-Original on 09.7.2008. Therefore, he submits that there is a delay in the filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her partner, I have temporarily stopped the business." It is not the case of the appellant that they have intimated a new address for communication to the department. The reply dated 24.5.2008 also contained the same address as to which the order-in-original was despatched. Further, it is not in dispute that the personal hearing fixed on 16.6.2008 has been received by the appellant and that they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner has no powers as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2009 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)]. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation is upheld and the party's appeal is rejected. 7. The COD application and stay petition are also disposed of. - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
