Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order-in-original was validly served so as to trigger limitation for the appeal, and whether the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) could be treated as time-barred.
Analysis: The record did not establish valid service on the appellant through the advocate said to have received the order, as the appellant had shown a different authorised representative before the original authority and the departmental material did not show compliance with the statutory mode of service. Mere dispatch followed by return undelivered was held insufficient, and the requirements for deemed service were not shown to have been satisfied. On the appellant's version, the order was received later, making the appeal delay only of two days, a delay within the condonable limit under the governing appeal provision. In the circumstances, and to meet the ends of natural justice, the delay was treated as condoned and the matter was sent back for decision on merits.
Conclusion: The appeal was held to be maintainable, the finding of limitation was displaced, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.