9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) 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. - Appeal No. 1102 of 2012 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion has been taken over by the court receiver. However, we find no justification in the above-mentioned reason in as much as from the list of dates and events, produced on record by the appellant as per directions given to him on the last date of hearing, we note that the said High Court s decision was on 10/09/1997, whereas appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) on 02/12/1997. As such, when the appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant was aware of Hon ble Bombay High Court s order and the appointment of the receiver and taking over of the factory by the receiver. In that case, the correct correspondence address was required to be given by the appellant in their EA-2 form of appeal filed before him. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notices were issued to the appellant at their knew address and as such it has to be presumed that the Revenue new about the correct address does not find favour with us in as much as the show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner at the original adjudicating levels and the appeals are disposed of by different offices of Commissioner (Appeals). As such, 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). 3. COD application is accordingly reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
