https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50377 Service of hearing notice was treated as valid where the envelope showed refusal of acceptance, so separate service on counsel was not required merely because the appellant did not receive the notice personally. The Tribunal also found that the grounds in the appeal memo had already been considered on merits, so there was no substantive denial of hearing. The authority relied on by the appellant was distinguished because the notice here was refused, not left unserved. The request to recall the ex parte order and restore the appeal was therefore not accepted. en-us Thu, 06 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:15:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50377 Service of hearing notice was treated as valid where the envelope showed refusal of acceptance, so separate service on counsel was not required merely because the appellant did not receive the notice personally. The Tribunal also found that the grounds in the appeal memo had already been considered on merits, so there was no substantive denial of hearing. The authority relied on by the appellant was distinguished because the notice here was refused, not left unserved. The request to recall the ex parte order and restore the appeal was therefore not accepted. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50377