2025 (2) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal has been filed by the Appellant - M/s Techmax Electronics challenging the impugned order dated 18th November, 2024 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT'), by which the delay in filing the second appeal has not been condoned by CESTAT. 4. The brief background is that the Appellant had filed a Bill of Entry for import of certain Brass Ceramic Cartridges from China by Bill of Entry No. 2995695 dated 28th August, 2017. There was an allegation of misdeclaration, which was made and the value of the goods was alleged to be under-valued. A differential duty of Rs.2,71,201/- was assessed by the Department and confirmed vide the Order-in-Original dated 12th September, 2017 (hereinafter 'OIO'). The OIO also impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner (Appeals) dated 1st June, 2020. 8. According to the Appellant, during the COVID period, the Counsel also did not inform the Appellant about the passing of the order by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is only when the Appellant visited the office of the Department that the Appellant came to know of the order, which was passed. Hence, there was a substantial delay of more than four years in filing of the appeal before CESTAT. 9. The appeal was filed on 24th May, 2024 before the CESTAT. In the said appeal, the CESTAT observed as under: "3. A perusal of the order that was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) indicates that the learned consultant appearing for the appellant had actually appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) to find out whether the order had been passed. The appellant has been absolutely negligent in the matter. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant was not informed by the Commissioner (Appeals) about the passing of the order despite seeking such information. 8. The cause of the fire cannot also be a ground for delay in filing the appeal because the learned consultant had actually appeared before the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing on 16.01.2020 and the fire had taken place much earlier in 2018. 9. The appellant has, therefore, not been able to make out any ground, much less a satisfactory ground, for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The application is, accordingly, rejected. The appeal, therefore, stands....