https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331406 Service of an adjudication order sent by speed post was treated as duly effected because, although Section 27 of the General Clauses Act presumption applies to registered post, delivery could still be inferred under Section 114 of the Evidence Act from ordinary postal transmission when no rebuttal evidence was produced. Cross-objections were held not to be barred by limitation because the governing statute did not prescribe a fixed filing period, and the appellate authority had itself granted time to file them. The commentary states that cross-objections could not be rejected as time-barred on an unstated limitation period, while the challenge otherwise failed. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2016 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331406 Service of an adjudication order sent by speed post was treated as duly effected because, although Section 27 of the General Clauses Act presumption applies to registered post, delivery could still be inferred under Section 114 of the Evidence Act from ordinary postal transmission when no rebuttal evidence was produced. Cross-objections were held not to be barred by limitation because the governing statute did not prescribe a fixed filing period, and the appellate authority had itself granted time to file them. The commentary states that cross-objections could not be rejected as time-barred on an unstated limitation period, while the challenge otherwise failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331406