Valid service by registered post and refusal to receive an order starts limitation and bars condonation beyond the statutory limit.

Refusal to accept a duly dispatched adjudication order constitutes valid service when sent by registered post with acknowledgment due under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Once service is completed, limitation for filing the appeal begins to run under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) may condone delay only within the statutory outer limit of 60 days plus 30 days, and not beyond that period. On these facts, the appeal was time-barred, and the dismissal of the appeal was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the adjudication order was valid under the statutory mode of service, and whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) could be entertained after the prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: Service by registered post with acknowledgment due under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is sufficient service. The record showed dispatch of the order and a finding that the appellant refused to receive it, which amounts to valid service. Once service was complete, the limitation under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 began to run. The appellate authority could condone delay only up to the statutory outer limit of 60 days plus 30 days, and not beyond that period.

Conclusion: The order was validly served, the appeal was time-barred, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed 90 days. The dismissal of the appeal was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal on limitation failed, and the appellate order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Refusal to accept a duly dispatched order constitutes sufficient service, and the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the maximum period expressly fixed by the statute.

---