250.            Dept contended that any decision passed by the authorities can be served either to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized representative, if any. As such, he argues that the order  having been served upon their Consultant should be considered as appropriately served.

The applicant contend that the reference of service is to the “authorized representative” of the person for whom the order is meant for. The Consultant appearing before the Commissioner is authorized only to advance arguments before the appellate authorities and to defend the appellant. There is no authorization to the Consultant for receiving the order in question. Such authorization to receive the order has to be given separately by the person for whom the order is meant.

Service of order should be to person for whom order is meant for. Authorization to Consultant for receiving order in question has to be given separately by person for whom order is meant.

There was sufficient cause for condonation of delay as service on Consultant was not sufficient.