TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Appellant. Shri Fateh Singh, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - Learned counsel Shri Bipin Garg submits that the appellant was prevented to place his case before the learned Appellate Authority who dismissed its appeal holding the same to be time barred. According to the learned Commissioner, the appellant had received the order-in-original on 3-3-07 while app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al.) = 2006 (193) E.L.T. 132 (Cal.). He places para '6' of the order in support of his claim that service of an order on a peon is not a valid service under law. Also he realise on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Yarnar Packs v. Commissioner of Customs & C. Ex., Hyderabad IV reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 511 (Tribunal) = 2007 (219) E.L.T. 343 (Tri. - Bang.). Relying on these two decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....early that the order-in-original was served on the appellant with the acknowledgement of service of the order on 3-3-07. When the order was served on the appellant, limitation was bound to be calculated from that date. We have also gone through para '6' of the decision cited by the learned counsel in the case of Matigara Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). In that case the order was served on a peon. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispute that order was served on 3-3-07 on one Shri Jaipal Singh, the appellant has not come out with clean hands to prove its bona fide submitting that the order could not receive attention of appellant because that was served on Shri Jaipal Singh. The case clearly throws light that the appellant is an indolent with out being conscious to exercise its right of redressal. In view of such circum s....