2015 (12) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt : A. P. Mathur For the Respondent : Vinod Kant Srivastava ORDER Against the order in original dated 19.5.2008, the appeal was filed by the appellant on 30.10.2010. Since there was a considerable delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal as being barred by time. The appellant, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal contending that in the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntial premises of the appellant who represented himself to be the nephew. Based on this service, as per paragraph 47(2) of the Adjudication Manual of the Department which allows the adjudication order to be served through the Local Range Office, the Tribunal held that there was sufficient service of the order in original and, therefore, dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Sri A.P. Mat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice of the impugned order since Virendra Yadav was neither the authorised representative nor the order was served upon the appellant and, consequently, there was no proper service. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion, that if the order is served on a member of the family, it is duly served and in our opinion, there is sufficient service. No assertion was....