9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laneous application, is not bonafide. Thus, we are of the view that since the Applicant has been communicated with the order on 21st May, 2012, which has also evident from the fact that they have filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, challenging the impugned order along with the main notice, but choose not to file the appeal before this Tribunal along with the appeal thereafter, filed by the main Applicant, the claim that they have not been communicated with the order, therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time, is devoid of merit. We also find that the approach of the Applicant is not bonafide all along and also they could not show sufficient cause warranting condonation of the delay. - Condonation denied. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a matter of abundant precaution, they had filed the present miscellaneous applications. The ld. Advocate has fairly accepted that along with the main noticee, the Applicant had also challenged the impugned order before the Hon ble Calcutta High Court by filing Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as W.P.No.457 of 2012 and disposed off subsequently. 4. As the Applicant had categorically claimed that they were not communicated/served with the order dated 7th May, 2012, the ld. Spl. Counsel for the Revenue, was directed to ascertain the said claim of the Applicant. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to 8th August, 2012, 19th August, 2013, 9th September, 2013, 18th September, 2013, 28th Nov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icants had categorically stated that they have not been communicated with the order ; but, when the Department placed the acknowledgement copy, procured from the Postal Department, then the Applicant disputed the signature in the acknowledgement as neither belonging to him nor to the CHA firm, where he has been working. Later, on issuing summon and investigation carried out by the Customs House, it was found that the order was communicated, but the signature was of Shri Subhas Chandra Ghosh, partner of M/s Akshoy Kumar Ghosh Company, the main Noticee. The ld.Spl.Counsel has further submitted that the Applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 7th May, 2012 along with the CHA by filing a Writ Petition before the Hon ble Calcutta Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 10th July, 2013 that a categorical claim has been made by the Applicant, Shri Avijit Swarnakar that he had not received the impugned order. Consequently, the Department was directed to produce proof of service, if any. When the Department produced a letter along with the delivery slip, from the GPO, Kolkata, the Applicant disputed the said delivery slip by contending that it was neither received for on behalf of the firm nor any one employed in the firm. Consequently, after making necessary investigation, it was established by the Department that the signature mentioned in the delivery slip is one, Mr.Subhas Chandra Ghosh, partner of CHA firm. We find that the plea taken by the Applicant all along during the course of hearing of misc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
