- (1.) 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 facts and circumstances the delay, if any, was liable to be condoned and that the Tribunal ought to have heard the appeal on merits.
(2.) According to the appellant, he was unaware of the order in original dated 19.5.2008 and only came to know when the Department came to recover the dues and it was only thereafter that the appellant applied on 25.9.2010 to the Assistant Commissioner for supply of the copy of the order in original, which was made available on 30.10.2010. The appeal was thereafter presented on 3.12.2010 and, consequently, was within the period of limitation.
(3.) The respondents opposed the appeal as being barred by time. The Department contended that a show cause notice was served on 16.10.2006 and the order in original was served on 18.6.2008 to one Virendra Yadav at the residential 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.;