2015 (12) TMI 804 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Non delivery of order - Held that - If the order is served on a member of the family, it is duly served and in our opinion, there is sufficient service. No assertion was made by the appellant before the Tribunal that the service made upon Virendra Yadav was not a family member or that he was not connected with the business. Even before this Court, the appellant has no where stated that Virendra Yadav is not her nephew. Making the assertion at this stage that he was not connected with the business is irrelevant. Further, nothing has been stated that the address where the service of the original order was made was incorrect. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing the appeal
- Proper service of the order in original

Delay in filing the appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order dated 19.5.2008 on 30.10.2010, which was considered delayed by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the delay was due to being unaware of the original order and only received it when the Department came for recovery. The appellant applied for a copy on 25.9.2010, received it on 30.10.2010, and filed the appeal on 3.12.2010, within the limitation period. However, the respondents opposed, citing service of the original order on 18.6.2008 to a family member of the appellant, which was considered sufficient by the Tribunal.

Proper service of the order in original:
The appellant contended that the service of the order in original was improper as it was not served on the appellant or its authorized agent. The appellant argued that the person served was not connected to the business and, therefore, the service was invalid. However, the Court held that service on a family member constitutes proper service, and there was no assertion made by the appellant that the person served was not a family member or connected to the business. The Court found the service to be sufficient and upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal based on the limitation ground.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the order in original was properly served on the appellant on 18.6.2008, and the appeal was rightfully rejected by the Tribunal due to being filed beyond the limitation period. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision and upheld the dismissal of the appeal.