TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2009. On the face of it, there is delay of more than 3 years in filing these appeals. 2. Learned Consultant for the applicants submits that they came to know of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only on 6-7-09 when they applied for copy of the order. On perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that personal hearing was granted on 17-8-05 and no one appeared on that date. However, opportunity was granted on 14-11-05 and also on 29-12-05 but the Advocate of the applicants had taken adjournment. No body appeared on 10-1-2006, the next date of hearing. In other words, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is an ex parte order. There is endorsement dated 6-7-09 in the copies of the orders filed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the pre-deposit is waived and Appeals are taken up for final hearing. 6. These appeals arise out of the common order in appeal No. 13-19 CE/APPL/06 dated 19-1-2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation. All these appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 20-10-04. The details relating to the dates of orders in original and the dates of show cause notice are reproduced below :- Sl. No. Appeal No. before CESTAT No. and date of show cause notice issued by D.C./A.C, Agra No. and date of order in original passed by D.C./A.C. 1. E/2828/09 dt. 6-10-09 V(3)DMD/67/98 dt. 23-9-98 87/D.C./DMD/2000 dt. 23-2-2000 2. E/2829/09 dt. 6-10-09 RT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rawing my attention to para 12 to the terms of the partnership deed submits that only the managing partner is entitled to receive the copies of the communication addressed to the partnership firm. He also submits that the copies of the partnership deed has been submitted to the Department. Under these circumstances, the services of these orders on a partner who is not authorised to receive such orders is not a valid service. He also submits that Shri Rajiv Kumar Paliwal was a disabled person having serious ailment from the age of 14 years and later on, he developed dementia. Even if he has received those orders, same were not brought to the notice of the managing partner. The managing partner came to know of said orders in original only on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities' if not earlier. If the benefit of doubt is yet to be extended to the appellant, the same can relate to the period prior to 13-8-03. Having held that the appellants have received the orders at least on 13-8-03, it is noticed that the appeals have been filed only on 21-10-04 before the Commissioner (Appeals). The delay in fling these appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) is much beyond the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay. 10. The submissions that the partner who received the orders was suffering from dementia and that the said partner was not entitled to receive the communication on behalf of the appellants' firm are not acceptable submissions. As submitted by the learned DR., it has been sett....