Doubtful service of appellate orders can defeat a limitation objection, while binding Supreme Court precedent can invalidate contrary tribunal reasoning.

Doubtful service of the appellate order prevented the limitation objection from being accepted mechanically; where the record did not conclusively prove service on the stated date, the appeal was treated as filed within time. On merits, the dispute was controlled by Supreme Court authority, and contrary Tribunal rulings were treated as no longer good law after those decisions. The impugned order therefore could not be sustained on precedent and was set aside, with the pre-deposit condition dispensed with.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was barred by delay in the absence of a separate application for condonation, having regard to the dispute on service of the appellate order; (ii) Whether the impugned order could survive on merits in view of binding Supreme Court decisions.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was barred by delay in the absence of a separate application for condonation, having regard to the dispute on service of the appellate order.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that the Revenue's material did not conclusively establish service of the order on the stated date. The discrepancy in the address and the doubtful acknowledgment signature created sufficient doubt about service. In those circumstances, the appeal was treated as having been filed within time because the order was received later.

Conclusion: The delay objection was rejected and the appeal was treated as not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order could survive on merits in view of binding Supreme Court decisions.

Analysis: The issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court decisions in Escorts JCB Ltd. and Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the contrary Tribunal rulings relied upon in the impugned order had ceased to be good law after the Supreme Court's decisions.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not survive and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of in favour of the assessee with the impugned order set aside and the pre-deposit condition dispensed with.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence of service of an order is doubtful, delay cannot be rejected mechanically; and an order founded on precedents subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court cannot be sustained.

---