Actual receipt of order defeats limitation challenge, and speed post service was treated as valid under the statutory framework.

Admitted receipt of the adjudication order defeated the limitation challenge, because the dispute was only about service through a watchman and speed post. The Tribunal held that once actual receipt of the communication was established, alleged invalid service under Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not revive the appeal. It further treated speed post as falling within the statutory postal framework and distinguished the cited non-service precedent on the ground that receipt had not been proved there. The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation in view of service of the order by speed post and the admitted receipt of the communication by the appellant.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appellant admitted receipt of the order, though through a watchman, and the dispute was confined to the mode of service. It held that the question of invalid service under Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not assist the appellant once actual receipt of the communication was admitted. The Tribunal also followed the view that speed post falls within the statutory framework governing postal service and that the cited precedent on non-service was distinguishable on facts because there the receipt itself was not established.

Conclusion: The appeal was not saved from limitation and the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was sustained.

---