TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e who had appeared for personal hearing had not made any submission whether he had made any effort to find out. Held that - in these circumstances, claim of assessee was not acceptable and no fault could be found with order of Commissioner (Appeals). - ST/715 OF 2008 - ST/2 OF 2010 - Dated:- 18-1-2010 - M. VEERAIYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Chandan Kumar for the Appellant. Vijai Kumar for the Respondent. ORDER M. Veeraiyan, Technical Member - Heard both sides. 2. As a short issue is involved, the stay petition is disposed of and the appeal itself is taken for final disposal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the ground of time-bar holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er with reference to their Dak Register of GMTD office during the period 6-4-2006 to 6-5-2006. 4. On the other hand, the Department has produced the evidence in the form of extract from the dispatch register (along with original file for perusal) indicating that the letter was dispatched by Speed Post on 6-4-2006. Further, we find that on behalf of the appellants, the Accounts Officer Shri Abhishek Shukla has appeared for personal hearing on 27-1-2006. Having appeared for personal hearing, there is no submission whether they have made any efforts to find out whether the orders have been passed or received by them. Under these circumstances, the claim that it was only after a telephone call by the Superintendent, Service Tax somewhere in F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appreciate that no one shall prefer to cause prejudice to himself following the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji 1987 (28) ELT 185. But where a very casual approach has been made for compliance to law to seek the appellate remedy, that establishes scanty regard to law. In the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008 (228) ELT 162 (SC), the length of delay was held to be immaterial while causes of delay is material for consideration of delay of condonation application. When we look to the manner of filing appeal, we are unable to find appellant's vigilant attitude to seek appeal. The communications relied upon by appellant were of post limitation period. An indolent has no right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
