TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent addresses. There is no clear material on record to show that the petitioner was communicated with the order in original and at the same time, this Court notes some laxity on the part of the appellant as well. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the appellant was denied an opportunity to have the order on merits in original adjudication. The present appeal filed by the appellant is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal; his belated appeal was rejected on the ground that the reasons adduced for seeking condonation of delay were unsubstantial. The record indicates that the appellant was apprised of the order but was given a copy of it for the first time in 2010. The appellant appears to have repeatedly corresponding with the Customs Authority for furnishing a copy of order, after which he approached the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, taking into account all factors, this Court is of the opinion that subject to the appellant depositing ₹ 25 lakhs (after adjusting the amount of ₹ 5,52,520/- said to have been deposited as pre-condition, before he files an appeal, which lead to the impugned order), within a period of three weeks from today, the appeal before the CESTAT shall stand revived. It is directed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
