Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1216 - CESTAT NEW DELHICondonation of Delay – Cross examination of witnesses or inspector - Assessee contended that the limitation period has to be counted from the date of communication of the order – Held that:- The order in appeal was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and sent to the assessee on the available address under the normal course under registered AD - the appellant’s factory was lying closed and the said registered AD was received back to the department with the remarks ‘closed’ - the field officer was sent to serve the order to the appellant - As the factory was lying close, there was no responsible person available in the factory as per proceeding drawn under panchnama - The officer alongwith witness at the request of the officer accompanied to the residence of the director of the company - he was not found in his residence premises, the order was pasted at the main door of his residence – assessees have not been able to show any reason to doubt the correctness or authenticity of panchnama – there was no merits in assessee’s prayer for cross examination of witnesses or inspector - the order was served upon the appellant on 15.7.2006, in which case the appeal filed on 12.1.2011 would be barred by limitation – Thus, the application for condonation of delay rejected Decided against Assessee.
|