https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766422 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. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:24:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766422 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766422