https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97831 Defective service of the impugned order was accepted as the cause of the delay, and the Tribunal treated limitation for filing the appeal as running from actual service. The appellant showed that the order imposing personal penalty had been addressed ambiguously to multiple persons of the same name, became aware of it only later, obtained a copy through the department, and filed the appeal within three months of that service. As the departmental representative did not oppose condonation, the Tribunal found no delay attributable to the appellant and allowed the miscellaneous application for condonation. en-us Thu, 03 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:34:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97831 Defective service of the impugned order was accepted as the cause of the delay, and the Tribunal treated limitation for filing the appeal as running from actual service. The appellant showed that the order imposing personal penalty had been addressed ambiguously to multiple persons of the same name, became aware of it only later, obtained a copy through the department, and filed the appeal within three months of that service. As the departmental representative did not oppose condonation, the Tribunal found no delay attributable to the appellant and allowed the miscellaneous application for condonation. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97831