9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old that the respondent have been able to establish that the copy of original order was served on the appellant on 25.02.2009 and not on 04.05.2009, as contended on behalf of the appellant herein. Reliance was placed on an entry made in the diary of the department employee, which reads as under:- "9.30/12.00 Hrs. PAR NAINI SE M/S. TRIVENI GLASS SHEET KE MAIN OFFICE ME JAKAR PATRANK SANKHYA V (30) Dem/82/06 dt. 143-23.1.09 KO RECEIVE KARWAKAR VAPAS TAMEEL." The number given, therefore, is V (30) Dem/82/06 dt. 143-23.1.09. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention that the Order-in-Original was numbered as 313-Dem-/2008 dated 15.12.2008 and, therefore, what was claimed by the respondent to have been serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof, to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order, summons or notice, as the case may be, is intended; (c) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clauses (a) and (b), by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice. 2. Every decision or order passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been served on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to have been served on the appellant except for a noting made by an employee of the respondent themselves. 7. Both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the learned Tribunal have not noted the discrepancy in the number of the order, which has been served, nor any explanation has been given in respect of the same. Even, therefore, if the versions of the respondents are to be accepted, that some communication was served on the appellant on the date as set out in the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal, yet it cannot be said that it is the order or decision as contemplated under Section 37-C (1) (a) of the Act, which was served by the respondents. The limitation would only commence or start on ten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
