Delay condonation denied where counsel was engaged, hearing notice served, and no alternate address was given for the appellate order.

Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the appellant had engaged counsel, the hearing notice was served on both the appellant and counsel, and no alternate address was supplied for service of the appellate order. Service at the earlier address was therefore not considered defective, and the appellant's failure to exercise due diligence in checking the status of the matter was treated as fatal to the delay explanation. The challenge to the CESTAT order consequently failed, and the Revenue's position remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before CESTAT was rightly not condoned, and whether service of the Commissioner (Appeals)' order at the earlier address justified interference.

Analysis: The Appellant had engaged counsel in the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals), the hearing notice was served upon both the Appellant and counsel, and the counsel attended the hearing. No alternate address was furnished for service of the appellate order. In these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be faulted for sending the order to the earlier address. The Appellant also failed to demonstrate due diligence in verifying whether any order had been passed, and the circumstances urged were found insufficient to explain the prolonged delay.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was upheld, and the challenge to the CESTAT order failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and stood dismissed, leaving the Revenue's position undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party has engaged counsel, receives notice of hearing, fails to supply an alternate address, and does not exercise due diligence to ascertain the outcome, the delayed filing of the appeal cannot be condoned on the ground of non-service at an old address.

---