TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal CD (Bom.) 315 of 1985. It is averred in the application that the order in original against which the applicant preferred the appeal is dated 18-1-1984 but he had received the copy of the order only on 22-2-1985 and that within a period of three months from that date he had filed the appeal, viz. on 21-5-1985. It was further stated in the application that the applicant was not directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any further submission in the matter. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides. The two questions that arise for consideration in this application are : (i) Whether the appeal filed on 21-5-1985 is within time; and (ii) If not, is the applicant prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. 5. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atched to the persons mentioned therein. But this presumption is a rebuttable presumption. If a party complains of the non-communication of the order and also denies the receipt of the order and further states on oath that the order has not been communicated then the presumption gets rebutted. The burden shifts to the department, to satisfy the Tribunal of the communication of the order by product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a party is required to be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order appealed against. In the absence of evidence on the part of the department as to the date of communication of the order to the applicant, the date of receipt of the order by him shall have to be taken as the date on which he was communicated with the order. In that view of the matter the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
