Limitation and proper service: statutory delay cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period, and service at the last known address starts time running.

The appellate forum's power to condone delay was held to be strictly confined by statute; once the prescribed period had expired, it had no jurisdiction to extend time, so the belated appeals remained barred by limitation. Service of the impugned order was also found to be valid because it was sent to the appellant's earlier acknowledged residence and the receipt of notices at that address supported proper service. The alternative address was not substantiated, so the plea of non-service failed and limitation ran from the date of such service. As a result, the forum declined to entertain the matters and the penalty order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals, filed beyond the prescribed period, could be entertained by condoning the delay; (ii) Whether the impugned order had been properly served so as to start the limitation period.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals, filed beyond the prescribed period, could be entertained by condoning the delay.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed a clear limit on the appellate forum's power to condone delay. The appeals were filed after the expiry of the period beyond which the Board had no authority to extend time, and the applications for condonation could not overcome that jurisdictional bar.

Conclusion: The delay could not be condoned and the appeals were liable to be treated as barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order had been properly served so as to start the limitation period.

Analysis: The record showed that the order had been sent to the address where the appellant had earlier acknowledged residence and where notices had also been received. The alternative address relied upon at the stage of appeal was not substantiated, and the plea of non-service was not accepted.

Conclusion: Proper service was held to have been effected, and the limitation period had commenced from such service.

Final Conclusion: The appellate forum declined to entertain the matters on limitation grounds, leaving the penalty order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly limits the power to condone delay beyond a specified period, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain a belated appeal, and service at the last known address suffices to trigger limitation.

---