9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not intimated to Department - Held that:- When the appellant had knowledge about the appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), it is the duty of the appellant to follow up and track the status of the appeal. The impugned order was passed on 30.07.2014. The appeal is filed only on 03.08.2017 and there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The address had not changed after 30.07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had changed and even though the appellant had made submissions vide their letter dated 10.01.2012 and the letter head clearly indicate the current address of the appellant, the department had sent the impugned order to their old address. Further, that the person in charge of the imports of the appellant company Shri Jagdeep Singh had left the organization on August 31, 2013. While leaving the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention put forward by the Ld. Counsel is that the person in charge of the imports in the appellant company had left without handing over the documents relating to the appeal to the next person who had taken charge. So also, that the consultant who was appearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not inform them about the order. When the appellant had knowledge about the appeal pending befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent informing the change of address. Having failed to do so, they cannot later contend that their address was changed. Moreover, the address had not changed after 30.07.2014 and before dispatch of the order by the department. These being the facts, we do not find sufficient cause to condone the delay. The miscellaneous application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
