https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151978 Maintainability depended on whether the present appellant was shown to have been a party to the earlier appeal; as the record contained no signature on the prior memorandum of appeal or vakalatnama, the earlier dismissal did not bind her. Limitation, however, ran from valid service of the challenged order on counsel whose authority had not been revoked, and such service was treated as service on the appellant. The appeal was filed after the statutory period of 45 days plus the further 15 days, and the appellate forum had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the outer limit expressly prescribed by statute. The challenge to the forfeiture order therefore failed on limitation. en-us Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:12:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151978 Maintainability depended on whether the present appellant was shown to have been a party to the earlier appeal; as the record contained no signature on the prior memorandum of appeal or vakalatnama, the earlier dismissal did not bind her. Limitation, however, ran from valid service of the challenged order on counsel whose authority had not been revoked, and such service was treated as service on the appellant. The appeal was filed after the statutory period of 45 days plus the further 15 days, and the appellate forum had no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the outer limit expressly prescribed by statute. The challenge to the forfeiture order therefore failed on limitation. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151978