9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. These appeals are filed challenging the Final Order Nos. 40593 and 40594 of 2014 in Appeal Nos. ST/41424/2013-DB and ST/41425/2013-DB respectively, dated 16-7-2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,233/- (in C.M.A. No. 3031 of 2014) along with interest and also imposed equal penalty on the appellant. 3.2 According to the department, the above said order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, was served on the authorized representative of the appellant company on 19-5-2012. Whereas, it is the plea of the appellant that they came to know about the fact that the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal rejected the applications filed for condonation of delay on the ground that after the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority, there was no follow up by the appellant in respect of the proceedings and, therefore, it is a clear case of sheer negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant. 3.4 Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the present appeals are fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er or its despatch. Only when such order is received by the person concerned, he will be in the know of things. It is, therefore, necessary for a party to explain the delay from the date of actual service either on the person concerned or his authorized representative and such delay has to be properly explained when an appeal is filed after the statutory period prescribed. There is no necessity to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
