Deemed service by registered post triggers limitation unless rebutted with evidence, making the appeal time-barred.

Dispatch of an adjudication order by registered post to the correct address gives rise to deemed service under Section 37C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; that presumption can be displaced only by cogent rebuttal evidence. Because no such evidence was produced, limitation for filing the appeal ran from the deemed date of service, and the challenge was treated as time-barred beyond the statutory period and the condonable delay period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order-in-original was validly served so as to make the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) time-barred.

Analysis: The order-in-original was sent by registered post acknowledgment due to the appellant's correct address. Under Section 37C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, service is deemed when the decision or order is tendered or delivered by post in the prescribed manner. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption of service. On these facts, the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was beyond the statutory period as well as beyond the condonable period of delay.

Conclusion: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rightly treated as time-barred and the rejection of that appeal was upheld, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal was sustained because deemed service of the original order was not rebutted and the challenge was filed beyond the permissible limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: Dispatch of an adjudication order by registered post to the correct address raises a presumption of deemed service under Section 37C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which can be displaced only by cogent rebuttal evidence; in the absence of such rebuttal, limitation runs from the deemed date of service.

---