9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the order passed by the second respondent has been received on behalf of assessee, this court is of the view that the reason given for dismissal by the first respondent cannot be accepted and further, no relevant document has been filed on the side of the respondent to the effect that the petitioner has received the order passed by the second respondent immediately after 24-2-2010. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to pay a demand of ₹ 1,53,000/- towards Service Tax. On the basis of such order, the Commissioner of Central Excise who has been arrayed as second respondent has issued Final Order. The petitioner has attempted to file appeal against the Final Order passed by the second respondent which a delay of 256 days and the first respondent has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e delay condonation petition in the facts and circumstances of this case? 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent on 24-2-2010 and the same has been received by the petitioner on 2-2-2011 and the first respondent without considering the date on which the petitioner has received the order passed by the seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. 7. The only point that comes up for consideration in the present civil miscellaneous appeal is as to whether the delay of 256 days in filing appeal before the first respondent can be condoned? 8. The first respondent has turned down the prayer of the petitioner simply on the ground that the order passed by the second respondent has been received on behalf of the assessee. 9. The spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
