https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3275 Service of an adjudication order on a company's authorised signatory could not be treated as service on the petitioners in their individual capacity because the record did not show any authorisation to receive the order on their behalf. The Tribunal's finding that the appeals were time-barred therefore rested on an incorrect assumption about service, and limitation had to be computed from the date the certified copy was made available to the petitioners. The rejection of the delay condonation applications was unsustainable, the writ petition succeeded, and the appeals were restored for decision on merits. en-us Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3275 Service of an adjudication order on a company's authorised signatory could not be treated as service on the petitioners in their individual capacity because the record did not show any authorisation to receive the order on their behalf. The Tribunal's finding that the appeals were time-barred therefore rested on an incorrect assumption about service, and limitation had to be computed from the date the certified copy was made available to the petitioners. The rejection of the delay condonation applications was unsustainable, the writ petition succeeded, and the appeals were restored for decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3275