https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242999 The Court set aside the Tribunal's order dismissing the rectification application by the Director of a company. It was found that Vijay Agarwal was an authorized representative of the Company but not specifically authorized to receive the order on behalf of the Director. The appeal was allowed, restoring the rectification application for the Director's fresh consideration by the Tribunal. No costs were awarded, highlighting the necessity for a separate assessment of Vijay Agarwal's authority to receive the order on behalf of the Director. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242999 The Court set aside the Tribunal's order dismissing the rectification application by the Director of a company. It was found that Vijay Agarwal was an authorized representative of the Company but not specifically authorized to receive the order on behalf of the Director. The appeal was allowed, restoring the rectification application for the Director's fresh consideration by the Tribunal. No costs were awarded, highlighting the necessity for a separate assessment of Vijay Agarwal's authority to receive the order on behalf of the Director. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242999