2018 (8) TMI 251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ause Notice was originally adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 11/DC/ST/ADJ/DIV-II/2012 dated 30.01.2012 vide which the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/assesse filed an Appeal. The said Appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. BPL-EXCUS-000-APP-033-14-15 dated 13.05.2014 on the limited ground of limitation. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. It is submitted by the appellant in respect of the present Appeal that vide the impugned order, Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has miserably failed to take into consideration the date of communication of O-I-A dated 13.05.2014 while holding the Appeal as time barred. It is impressed upon tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be set aside for the said reason. 4. After hearing both the Ld. Counsels, and perusing the entire record, in present of us, we observe that Dy. Commissioner while passing the Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2012 has observed the conduct of the appellant about not being present for defending himself. It is specifically mentioned in the Order that "despite several opportunities were given to the present appellant to appear and defend himself including present hearing but he failed to appear." The Order also reflects that the appellant denied receiving even the Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2006 which, on the basis of the evidence on record, the original authority has opined it to be contradictory. Keep in view the said conduct of appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a person seeking aid of the judicial authority for exercising its discretionary power is expected to state correct facts and not to state lies before the court. Above all, it is not the case that address of appellant in ordinary post was wrong. It is also a settled law that technicalities of the law are the handmade of the justice, any the party to litigation cannot be allowed to take any undue benefit therefrom. 7. In the present case, the applicant is held to have not observed the due diligence. Even after receiving the recovery notice, he failed to be prompt. Above all, as per Section 85 of Finance Act, Commissioner (Appeals) had no discretion to condone the delay beyond a period of 3 months. 8.....