9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. These petitions have been filed to condone the delay of 684 days in filing the appeals before this Court, challenging the order passed by Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 3. Before proceeding to examine as to whether the petitioner has shown suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r personal enquiry on 12.12.2012. The petitioner, by a letter dated 06.12.2012, requested for adjournment of the personal hearing to 19.12.2012 and even on the said date, the petitioner did not appear. Subsequently, on 28.12.2012, the petitioner sent a letter, stating that they would be filing a application before the Settlement Commission. However, the petitioner did not file any such application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eek's time. However, the petitioner neither appeared personally nor sent any reply to the said letter. Consequently, based on the available materials, the adjudicating authority passed the order in original dated 20.03.2014. 4. The petitioner continued to be negligent and though filed an appeal before the CESTAT with a delay of about 400 days, it is not clear as to whether the minimum pre-dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before this Court. Though it is stated by the petitioner that the appeal was presented on 21.03.2019, the office report shows that it was filed on 11.04.2019. 5. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, it is seen that though the affidavit contains five paragraphs, three paragraphs are devoted to the merits of the matter and in paragraph 4, the petitioner has blam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
