TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kant ORDER This appeal is by a Director of Raj Ratan Industry Limited who is aggrieved by the dismissal of a rectification application by the judgment of the Tribunal dated 21 June 2013. The Tribunal, by a common order, dismissed both the rectification applications filed by the Company and the Director, who is the appellant in the present appeal. By the judgment delivered by this Court today in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Both the appeals were disposed of by permitting the Company and the Director to file rectification applications since it was submitted that Vijay Agarwal, who had received a copy of the order of the adjudication, was not an authorised representative within the meaning of Section 37-C. The Tribunal dealt with both the rectification applications while dismissing them by a common order dated 21 Ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the appellant. In this regard, reliance has placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in R.K. Agarwal Vs. CESTAT, New Delhi reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 486 (Alld.) in support of the submission that an authorised signatory who has received an adjudication order on behalf of the Company, which is an assessee, may not necessarily be an authorised signatory to receive a copy of....