TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order].- The appellants filed this application for condonation of delay of two years. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants vide order dated 14-9-2001 and the appellants filed this present appeal on 9-10-2003. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. The contention of the appellants is that the impugned order was never received by them as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The impugned order was sent to the applicants by registered post on 1-1-2001. These facts were not disputed by the appellants. The contention of the appellant is that due to change in their registered office, they had not received the impugned order. It is also admitted by the appellants that the change in their registered office had never been conveyed to the Commissioner (Appeals). In the cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
