9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 incorre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.2008 and only came to know when the Department came to recover the dues and it was only thereafter that the appellant applied on 25.9.2010 to the Assistant Commissioner for supply of the copy of the order in original, which was made available on 30.10.2010. The appeal was thereafter presented on 3.12.2010 and, consequently, was within the period of limitation. The respondents opposed the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions, orders, summons, etc. (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served, - (a) by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any; Accordingly to the learned counsel, the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the order in original was duly served upon the appellant on 18.6.2008. The appeal was filed belat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
