Rebuttable presumption of postal service does not bar appeal where the order-in-original was not effectively supplied.

Service of an adjudication order by registered post creates only a rebuttable presumption, and where the surrounding facts support non-receipt the appeal cannot be rejected purely on limitation. The remand required the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh on merits, but the authority instead dismissed it without supplying the order-in-original despite repeated requests. Since effective exercise of the appellate remedy required access to the order, the technical objection to service was not accepted. The assessee was to be supplied a copy of the order-in-original and allowed to pursue the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be rejected as barred by limitation on the basis of alleged service of the adjudication order by registered post, or whether the matter had to be considered on merits after supply of the order.

Analysis: The remand order had directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh on merits. In the remand proceedings, the authority instead rejected the appeal on limitation without supplying the adjudication order despite repeated requests. Service by registered post gives rise only to a rebuttable presumption, and the surrounding facts supported the appellant's claim that the order had not been received. Since the assessee needed a copy of the order to pursue the remedy effectively, the dispute could not be shut out on a technical objection to service.

Conclusion: The objection based on limitation was not accepted, and the appellant was to be supplied a copy of the order-in-original and permitted to file an appeal to be decided on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).

---