https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77567 A defective appeal memo does not secure an indefinite right to revive the matter after non-compliance with defect notices. Where the first defect memo was duly served and no satisfactory explanation was offered for failing to remove defects within the time granted, Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits acceptance only on sufficient cause being shown. The later plea that defect intimations were not received at a changed address did not excuse the original default, because the correspondence had been sent to the address disclosed in the appeal. The delay of four years and six months was therefore not condonable, and the attempt to treat the refiling as a fresh appeal was rejected. en-us Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77567 A defective appeal memo does not secure an indefinite right to revive the matter after non-compliance with defect notices. Where the first defect memo was duly served and no satisfactory explanation was offered for failing to remove defects within the time granted, Rule 11 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits acceptance only on sufficient cause being shown. The later plea that defect intimations were not received at a changed address did not excuse the original default, because the correspondence had been sent to the address disclosed in the appeal. The delay of four years and six months was therefore not condonable, and the attempt to treat the refiling as a fresh appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77567