9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made aware of the Order-in-Appeal dt. 26.2.2007 by the department on pasting the same at his last known address. Thirdly, we find that the address given by the appellant in an appeal filed before the Tribunal is also the very same address wherein his factory was located to which the Order-in-Appeal was sent by post and it was received back - Condonation denied. - Appeal No. : E/13854/2013-DB - ORDER No. A/10495 / 2014 - Dated:- 3-4-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Nimesh Desai (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri M. Kutty (A.R) JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran; 1. This stay petition and appeal called out and we find that appellant has filed an application for condonatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en aware of an order which has been passed against them and would have taken steps to file an appeal before the higher forum. He would also submit that the lower authorities were in error in holding that the appellant had not taken the matter seriously. He would also submit that the appellant came to know about the passing of the order when the lessor of the property informed that the transfer cannot take place because of some liability with the Central Excise and Customs standing on appellant/applicant s name. It is his submission that this is a case, fit for condoning the delay occasioned due to the reasons stated in the application as well as the affidavit, in support of the stay application. He would also submit that there are various d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esented before the first appellate authority. When the matter was heard by him in appeal, the appellant had at that time also indicated the address of his factory which, he claims that, was closed in 2003. To our mind, if in 2007, when the matter was heard by the first appellate authority and the appellant was represented, why it was not brought to his notice is the question which was bothering us and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the appellant did not bother to appear before the first appellate authority nor before the adjudicating authority. In our view, the evidences produced by the learned D.R suggest that the department had tried to their level best to serve the copy of the OIA dt. 26.2.2007 to the appellant by sending the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
