TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Order-in-Appeal. This application was disposed off by the first appellate authority wherein he dismissed the application filed by passing an appealable order vide Order No. CCEA-SRT-II/SSP-97/u/s 35A (3) (Misc. Order) dt. 21.11.2012. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Bench vide Final Order No.A 11001/WZB/AHD/2013, dt. 7.8.2013 disposed of the stay petition and appeal by directing the first appellate authority to grant a certified copy of the OIA dt. 26.2.2007. After receiving such certified copy from the appellate authority office, the appellant filed a stay petition and appeal before the Bench. The Registry directed the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther hand, would submit that the impugned Order-in-Appeal dt. 26.2.2007 was despatched to the appellant in a manner as envisaged under the provisions/statute. It is his submission that the said order was received by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), Surat-II. On receiving back the order, the office of Commissioner (Appeals) sent a copy of the OIA to the Range Superintendent to deliver the said order by pasting the order on the appellant's last known address. In support of such a proposition, he took us on record the letter F.No.Commr. (A)/SRT-II/Misc./2007 dt. 10.8.2007 and the Panchnama as done by the office of the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Range III, Division III, Ankleshwar. 5. On careful consideration of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first appellate authority has resorted to alternate mode of serving the order by pasting the order on the last known address of the appellant after drawing proper Panchnama which is on record and produced by Ld. D.R. 7. In our considered view, the appellant has not given any proper address to the lower authorities despite having knowledge that his factory is closed and also did not avail the opportunity of personal hearings, granted by the lower authorities, it seems that he had committed himself of not cooperating with the authorities. Secondly, having been not co-operative with the authorities, today, the appellant/applicant cannot claim that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal be condoned which, in our view, is a prayer ....