TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate for the assessee Sh. R. K. Mishra, AR for the Revenue ORDER Per: Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeals are against order-in-original No.30/06-07 dated 30.03.2007. 2. The appeals filed by the appellant are time barred about nine years. In the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that the order was not received by the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the appellant S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. After issuing of the show cause notice and examination of the witnesses the impugned order was passed. Before the adjudicating authority, the assessee has also sought the inspection of the documents seized by the department. It is the submission of the ld. representative for the department that on 20.02.2002, the appellant sought the personal hearing. 4. After hearing both the sides and on per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not serious about the show cause notice. There is no proper explanation in the present case, so as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the delay of about nine years cannot be condoned. It may be mentioned that proper explanation is required as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Pawan Kumar Saraf, JT 1999 (1) SC 39. 7. We are sat....