TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itation should have been counted from the date of service of the corrigendum order upon the petitioner on 22-12-2010 and thus, in that situation the appellate authority should have held that the appeal was filed within 180 days from the date of receipt of the corrigendum order and therefore, it was within the extended period of limitation. Treating the appeal to be within 180 days, now the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that order. The petitioner s grievance is that the petitioner s application for condonation of delay could have been considered, had the appeal been filed within 180 days. However, the appellate authority took the date, i.e. the date of original order dated 1-10-2010 and computed the limitation from the date of filing of the appeal, which is filed on 22nd June, 2011 and therefore, reach to the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 22nd June, 2011 and therefore, the appellate authority rightly reached to the conclusion that the appeal was filed after 237 days from the date of the original order dated 1-10-2010. 5. We considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and are of the considered opinion that by corrigendum order dated 13-12-2010, liability of the petitioner has substantially been changed and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
