9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scellaneous Appeal No.2153 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2016 - MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO AND Dr.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH For the Appellant: Ms.J.Ragini for M/s.S.Murugappan JUDGMENT BY NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.,) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South ZonAL Bench, Chennai, rendered in Final Order No.40562 of 2014 dated 27.08.2014, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant to the said Tribunal, calling in question the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the appeal preferred by the appellant as time barred. 2. The case as set up by the appellant was that the order in original passed by the primary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.When we have carefully perused the order-in-original dated 29.03.2011, the following facts have emerged therefrom: The show cause notice dated 19.10.2009 has been delivered to the appellant on 20.10.2009. Time was sought for till 18.12.2009, to respond. Thereafter, another request was made seeking extension of time up to 18.01.2010 and again extension was sought for up to 18.02.2010. For the failure to submit their reply to the show cause notice, another notice dated 23.02.2010 was issued by the department to submit immediately their reply and also to intimate as to whether they wished to be heared in person. There was no response from the appellant. Hence, the department intimated on 27.04.2010 that the date of personal hearing is fix ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver brought to the notice of the department that they are not operating from their Tuticorin Office premises and instead, shifted their operations to Cochin. The default in this regard lies with the appellant. Thus, there is no warrant for us to believe that they have not received the order-in-original on 05.04.2011. 7.This apart, even on their own showing, the appellant has sought for postponement of the personal hearing from 28.03.2011 to 04.04.2011. Therefore, onus lies on the appellant to ascertain as to whether the hearing on 28.03.2011 has been postponed or not and if the hearing is not postponed as to what action has been taken with regard to the said show cause notice drawn on 19.10.2009. 8. Therefore, we are convinced that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
