9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have not given the date on which they received the Order-in-Appeal No. 512/98, dated 28-12-98. In the application dated 30-10-99 for COD, appellants have stated that subsequent to the personal hearing, the appellants were awaiting the order of Commissioner (Appeals). However, to their surprise, they received a letter dated 7-9-99 from the Superintendent proposing to recover the amounts involved in the appeal on the ground that appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 28-12-98. In the affidavit, they contend that did not receive the order at all and in the absence of the copy of the order, they could not file the appeal in time before the Tribunal. Only after the intimation by the Superintendent, they have filed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -11-2000. Again on 16th Nov., 2000, the Counsel sought adjournment and the case was adjourned to 11-12-2000. From 11-12-2000, the matter was adjourned to 18-1-2001. On 18-1-2001, the Counsel filed a letter addressed to the Post Master, Chennai-20 seeking clarification regarding the service of department's communication and sought time to get report from the post office. The matter was adjourned to 22-2-2001. From 22-2-2001, the case was adjourned to 12-3-2001. From 12-3-2001, the matter has come up today. Today, the Counsel files a letter from the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Madras City South Division dated 24-1-2001. The letter reads as under :- "Sub : Delivery of regd. letter sent by Central Excise Dept, Ch-34 during January' 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ost office till 24-1-2001 on which date, the Senior Superintendent of Post Office had informed them that "the preservation period of document is already expired". He submits that the latches is patent on record. The party has not even cared to comply with the Bench direction to get the report from the post office after the department filed their documents on 12-7-2000. Therefore, the delay being enormous, the application should not be accepted. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the judgment of Madras High Court cited by the Counsel is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the Tribunal had dismissed the application without recording any finding on the date of communication of the impugned order. In the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
