9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STAT was not justified in doing so, on giving our consideration to that aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the circumstance where an opportunity is granted to the respondent, if the respondent establishes that the notice/orders had not been served, all that would flow is that the appellate authority would have to thereafter consider the appeal on its merit rather than dismissing i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngalore. In respect of the order in original where under a penalty of ₹ 26,52,698/- was imposed on the respondent herein, an appeal had been filed by the assessee before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by order dated 29/08/2013 had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and held that the appeal is rejected as not maintainable. 2. In that view, the respondent herein f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard. It is therefore contended that in such circumstance, the CESTAT was not justified in remanding the matter providing an opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. The respondent though served is unrepresented. 3. In view of the contentions put forth, we have perused the order in appeal. It is not in dispute that the appeal filed is after 4 years from the date of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar was drawn and actually the impugned order was pasted on other premises, found it necessary that the said aspect requires consideration after permitting cross-examination of the witnesses. In fact one of the contentions as raised by the respondent was rejected and only an opportunity has been granted by the CESTAT to cross-examine the witnesses to establish the fact that the notice in fact had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
