TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... address in spite of repeated attempts and then turn up to claim violation of principles of natural justice. One cannot kill both of one’s parents and then claim to be an orphan. Thus the appellant’s contention that it was not given an opportunity of being heard is totally untenable. We find that CESTAT vide order dated 4.12.2015 had clearly stated that the appeal stood dismissed in terms of the default clause in the order dated 21.9.2015 - no justifiable reason to interfere with the order of CESTAT - application rejected - appeal dismissed. - ST/Misc./52198/2015 & ST/1661/2011-CU(DB) - Final Order No. 52517/2016 - Dated:- 13-6-2016 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Varun K. Chopra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0707/2015 dated 24.2.2015 in terms of which it recalled its order dated 20.11.2012 and fixed hearing of the stay application for 10.3.2015. It was made clear that as the Counsel for the appellant was present, no further notice of hearing was needed to be issued. Subsequently, CESTAT passed stay order No. 53126/2015 dated 21.9.2015 which is reproduced below : Per Justice G. Raghuram: Notice of hearing of the stay application schedule today was dispatched to the appellant at the address provided in the memorandum of appeal on 2.6.2015. The notice was returned unserved with postal endorsement Notice is not available at the address to which the notice was dispatched. 2. In the circumstances, the stay application is dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.2.2016 , we clarify that since the appeal stands dismissed in terms of the default clause in the order dated 21.9.2015, Revenue shall be at liberty to realise the assessed liability in accordance with law. List on 15.2.2016 . No fresh notice need be issued. The appellant on 13.6.2016 (today) strenuously argued that the said order dated 4.12.2015 itself records that the notice for hearing was not served and therefore the order of dismissal dated 21.9.2015 should be recalled and an opportunity should be given for hearing of the stay application. 3. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that it was not the first time that the notice sent to the appellant s address was returned unserved. Even the first stay order dated 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
