TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department issued notice for recovery. All these aspects were proved to be wrong on record. The memo of appeals contained the address of the Deputy Commissioner where his office was not situated in the year 2005 but much later. It is also come on record that in the year 2009 also the department had sent notices indicating that the Orders in Original were final and no appeals were pending. At least from that point the petitioner should have taken appropriate steps, which, admittedly, was not done. Additionally, even if the petitioner was under the belief that the appeals were filed in the year 2005, it was their duty to inquire with their legal consultant as to the progress in such appeals. Admittedly, for more than 8 years, the petitioner s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact filed. However, it was only in the year 2013 when the department initiated coercive recovery, that the petitioner upon inquiring with the legal advisor learnt that the appeals were never filed. The petitioner thereupon appointed another legal advisor and presented the appeals before the Deputy Commissioner on or around 12th August 2013. Along with the appeals, an additional affidavit is filed pointing out the reasons why the appeals could not be presented earlier. The Deputy Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeals on the ground of gross delay by an order dated 26.02.2014. Against such order, the petitioner preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned orders dismissed the appeals on the ground that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department had sent notice which was admittedly served on the petitioner. Despite this, no steps were taken for inquiring about the outcome of the appeals, which according to the petitioner, were supposed to have been filed. On such facts, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we see no reason to interfere. Admittedly there was a delay of more than 8 years in filing the appeals before the Deputy Commissioner against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner thus had the onus of rendering reasonable and satisfactory explanation for such delay. The petitioner's main explanations were that the appeals though prepared by the consultant and duly signed by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
