TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 provides the procedure for service of orders, notices etc. It provides for direct service of an order on the person for whom it is intended, or on his agent The advocate holding vakalat of the appellant before the Commissioner was acting as an agent of the appellant - That the department also served a copy of the order on the appellant by its despatch by registered post, properly addressed and duly pre-paid - No overriding case law has been cited by the learned Counsel in this context to establish to the contra - There is no explanation for the delay of the appeal - Hence, the application is dismissed. - C/1230/2008 - A/320/2010-WZB/C-II/(CSTB) - Dated:- 20-8-2010 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, S.K. Gaule, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant had by a letter dated 8-8-2008 requested for a copy of the impugned order, (b) that a copy of the said order received earlier by him had been returned saying that he needed a copy of another order (No. 29/2006-07), and (c) that a copy of the impugned order (No. 30/2006-07) was forwarded to the appellant by the Superintendent in response to the formal request dated 8-8-2008. The other documents attached to the affidavit are copies of certain medical records including a medical certificate which indicates that the appellant s wife was under medical treatment from 10-10-2008 to 9-12-2008. Other medical records indicate that certain medicines were prescribed by a hospital for certain skin ailments of the appellant. In any case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned Counsel has submitted that a copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant only on 22-8-2008 and that the subsequent delay in the filing of the appeal has been satisfactorily explained in the present application as well as the affidavit. Confronted by the factum of earlier service of the impugned order indicated by the documents produced by the learned SDR, the learned Counsel submits that the earlier copy of the order received by the appellant was returned to the department and that this fact was acknowledged in the subsequent correspondence from the department. The learned Counsel further submits that the order copy received by Shri Prakash K. Shingrani, Advocate on 4-4-2007 cannot be considered as a copy received on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s communicated to the appellant and, therefore, for purposes of Section 129A, the delay of the appeal should be computed with reference to 22-8-2008. In this context, the Counsel has claimed support from Pravin Mansukhlal Mehta v. Union of India and Others - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 422 (Bom). Learned Counsel has also pleaded for an extremely liberal view in the facts and circumstances of this case. In this connection, he has relied on the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2395 of 2008 (Improvement Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh Ors.). He has also referred to certain orders of this Tribunal to the effect that the date of actual service of order should be reckoned as the date of communication of the order viz. Haldiram India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ival submissions centres around date of communication of the impugned order. According to the appellant, the order was received by him only on 22-8-2008. This claim is contradictory to his own admission that a copy of the order had been received earlier but returned to the department. The Revenue has produced documentary evidence of the order having been personally served on appellant s advocate on 4-4-2007. The learned Counsel has not been able to disprove this fact. His only argument is that the Advocate had appeared for other parties also and hence cannot be said to have received a copy of the order on behalf of the appellant. This argument does not appear to stand the test of law or logic. It is not in dispute that Shri Prakash K. Shing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have been properly effected when the postal article containing the notice is properly addressed, pre-paid and sent by registered post. Their Lordships further held that the return of the postal article to the sender with remark left would not be sufficient to disprove the service of the notice. It is true that the Hon ble High Court was interpreting the law in a different context, but there can be no denial of the fact that their Lordships were interpreting the provisions of Section 153 in relation to service of show-cause notice on the noticee. Fairly enough, the learned Counsel has not argued that Section 153 of the Act is liable to be differently construed in relation to Service of an order. As per the ruling of the Hon ble High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
