9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the petitioner - WP No. 2192 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2016 - Debangsu Basak, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Atish Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Sourabh Bagaria, Adv., Mr. A. Chandra, Adv. and Mr. S. Ghosh, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. S. B. Saraf, Adv. and Mr. K. K. Maiti, Adv ORDER The Court : The petitioner has assailed an order dated June 10, 2004 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned order, the appellate tribunal has refused to entertain an appeal against an order dated June 21, 2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner has sought to prefer an appeal against an order dated July 14, 1987 in 2002. Such appeal was rejected. Against the rejection, the appellate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a writing dated July 13, 1987. The petitioner thereafter did not take any steps with regard to such proceedings till 2002. In 2002, the petitioner sought to prefer an appeal from the order dated July 14, 1987. Such appeal was dismissed by an order dated June 21, 2002. A further appeal was preferred before the appellate tribunal which was dismissed by the impugned order dated June 10, 2004. The appellate tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner primarily on two counts. The first ground being the fact that the petitioner was served with the original order dated July 14, 1987. The appellate tribunal found that the same was sought to be sent under registered post with acknowledgment due card at the registered address of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to discharge such onus. The onus to prove delivery of the order dated July 14, 1987 has not shifted to the authorities, in the facts of this case. To allow the petitioner to have an appeal heard on the ground of laches actual proof of delivery more particularly given the conduct of the petitioner as noted above, would be miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the original order dated July 14, 1987 cannot be said to be vitiated by the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was aware of the proceedings. It chose not to appear thereon. It chose to issue a letter dated July 13, 1987 and thereafter did not follow it up or kept itself abreast with the developments or the progress of the adjudicatory proceedings. A prudent person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
