TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ress of their factory - as "M/s. Gayatri Iron Industries, Bhaira, Kanpur Road, Lucknow (U.P.)" and also the address of their advocate - "Shri S.N. Srivastava, Advocate, C-5, Sector-8, Aliganj, Lucknow Tel. : 2331118, 2323409 and Mobile : 9415468049". The notices for hearing, however, were sent to their factory address and the same were received back undelivered. According to the appellant their factory is closed since 1998. Since, the appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal at the time when the stay application had been fixed for hearing, an ex-parte stay order No. 513/06-SM(BR) dated 19-5-06 was passed directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 2,80,300/- within a period of six weeks and report compliance 10th July 2006. Since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame aware of the order passed by the Tribunal only when the proceedings for attachment of their property got for recovery of duty were initiated in March 2011 and they received the order from the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent, that only at that stage they immediately moved to the Tribunal for inspection of the records and came to know about the stay/pre-deposit order and the order dismissing their appeal for non-compliance, that immediately thereafter these, the application for restoration along with applications for condonation of delay and stay on recovery have been filed, that none of the notices of hearing were issued to the appellant's advocate Shri S.N. Srivastava, though his name and contact number has been mentioned in the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the original period for filing appeal is three months, application for restoration to be filed within maximum period of three months from dismissal and the cause for delay must be disclosed in the application filed beyond that period, that from the letter dated 18-3-11 of the Range Superintendent to the appellant asking them to provide the original registration/sale deed of certain properties, it cannot be concluded that the notice for recovery proceedings were issued to the appellant only in March 2011, that the appellant must have been aware of the Tribunal's order dismissing their appeal for non-compliance much earlier, that the reasons given by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing of restoration application are not convinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices regarding reporting compliance and order dismissal of their appeal for non-compliance appear to have been sent to the appellant at their factory address and all these notices have been returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the remarks that the factory is closed. Absolutely no efforts have been made to serve the notice to the appellant through his advocate. From the records it appeared that the appellant received the notice for forfeiture of their property sometimes in March 2011 and, therefore, I find the merit in their plea that only at that time, they became aware of the order dismissing their appeal and only on that stage, on inspection of the Tribunal's records, they came to know about the dismissal of their appeal in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This judgment would be applicable only in those cases where there is considerable delay in filing of appeal and absolutely no reasons have been given for the delay. However, in this case, the appellant plead that the notices for hearing and the orders passed by the Tribunal dismissal their appeal were never received by them which is clear from the fact that all the communications were returned undelivered by the postal authorities. In the facts of the case, I am satisfied that the reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing of application for restoration of appeal are genuine and hence delay is condoned. In view of this, the Final Order No. 1132/06-SM(BR), dated 19-7-06 dismissing the appeal for non-compliance to the provisions of Se....