9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd given by the applicant for seeking COD of 376 days and 499 days is that the security person on whom the impugned order was served misplaced the same and did not give to Accounts Department - Held that:- This reason given for such a long delay does not inspire confidence. Further, the two appeals have been filed by the appellant (one by the company and other by the Managing Director) against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent appeals respectively. The applicant has further stated that the Order-in-Appeal was purported to have been delivered to the applicant on 30/09/2014 and the applicant was required to prefer appeals within 90 days of the receipt of the order which would be on or before 29/12/2014. The applicant has further stated that they engaged the services of a consultant to consider and handle their Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received the notice of the attachment of immovable property that they came to know about the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) rejecting the appeal and thereafter they conducted the enquiry which revealed that the Order-in-Appeal was received by the security personnel and has misplaced and was not handed over to the Accounts Department and therefore the appeal could not be filed in time. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant for seeking COD of 376 days and 499 days is that the security person on whom the impugned order was served misplaced the same and did not give to Accounts Department. This reason given for such a long delay does not inspire confidence. Further, we find that two appeals have been filed by the appellant (one by the company and other by the Managing Director) against the same impugned order, bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
