https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269500 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the original order was properly served on the appellant on 18.6.2008. The appeal, filed on 30.10.2010, was considered delayed by the Tribunal. Despite the appellant's argument of being unaware of the order until later, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that service on a family member was deemed sufficient. Consequently, the appeal was rejected due to being filed outside the limitation period, with the Court finding no fault in the Tribunal's ruling. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269500 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the original order was properly served on the appellant on 18.6.2008. The appeal, filed on 30.10.2010, was considered delayed by the Tribunal. Despite the appellant's argument of being unaware of the order until later, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that service on a family member was deemed sufficient. Consequently, the appeal was rejected due to being filed outside the limitation period, with the Court finding no fault in the Tribunal's ruling. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269500