9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing knowledge by the applicant of the impugned order - Held that:- The order under challenge was announced on 18th May, 2014. The assessee, the Proprietor thereof passed away on 3rd November, 2016 i.e. after 2 years of the date of order under challenge. The application mentions no reason for the delay for said 2 years except that the deceased Mr. Santosh Rai was under medical treatment. The docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T/51219/2018-CU [DB] - ST/A/52855/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 10-8-2018 - MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Deepak Vajpay, CA Present for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jain, D.R. ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA Arguments on application for condonation of delay heard. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne, 2018 a letter has been sent to the Department seeking the date and proof of service of the impugned order and no reply thereof has been received but the fact remains is that the order was communicated well within time. There is no cogent reason to allow the condonation of delay. Application is prayed to be rejected. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, we are of the opin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Department dated 23 rd February, 2018 makes it clear that the letter was issued earlier also on several occasions with the repeated reminders. The absence of any action on those letters is opined sufficient to not to extend any benefit in favour of the applicant. Perusal of record also shows that an observation of the original adjudicating authority in the order dated 23 rd December, 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
