Effective service and limitation for appeal turned on actual receipt of the adjudication order after returned postal delivery.

An adjudication order sent by registered post to an address from which the assessee had already shifted, and where the change had been intimated to the excise authorities, was not effectively served when returned undelivered. The limitation period for filing the appeal was therefore reckoned from the date the order copy was actually received on learning of recovery proceedings. On that basis, the appeal was treated as within time, the limitation objection failed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation where the adjudication order sent by registered post to an address from which the appellant had already shifted was returned undelivered, and whether the period of limitation was to be reckoned from the date of receipt of the order copy.

Analysis: The order of adjudication was dispatched to an address where the factory had already stopped operations and the appellant had informed the excise authorities of the change. The first dispatch by registered post did not amount to effective service when it was returned undelivered. Since the appeal was filed after the appellant obtained the order copy on learning of the recovery proceedings, the appeal had to be treated as within time.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the appeal was to be treated as filed in time; the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits after affording hearing.

---