Limitation for appeal cannot be invoked where a timely filing was delivered to the wrong office and returned late.

An appeal filed within the prescribed time was not rendered time-barred merely because it was delivered to the wrong office within the same building and returned only after a long delay. On those facts, the filing could not be treated as delayed institution of the appeal, and the reliance on contrary authorities was rejected as fact-specific. The rejection of the appeal on limitation was set aside, and the matter was remanded for consideration on the basis that the appeal had been filed within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be treated as time-barred when it was filed within time but delivered in the wrong office, and whether the rejection of the appeal on limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The appeal was filed in time, but it was delivered in the office of the Service Tax Commissionerate instead of the office of the Commissioner (Appeals). The two offices were located in the same building, and the papers were returned only after a long delay. On these facts, the filing could not be treated as a delay in instituting the appeal. The contrary decisions cited were found distinguishable on facts.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal on the ground of delay was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal as filed within time.

---