Valid service and pre-deposit requirements hinge on proof of delivery and prior recovery, not mere dispatch or unpaid deposit.

Valid service of an order-in-original required proof of delivery in the manner prescribed by the governing provision; mere dispatch particulars and postal receipts were insufficient, so the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be treated as time-barred on the basis of alleged September 2017 service. The statutory pre-deposit requirement was also satisfied because the disputed amount had already been recovered from the appellant's bank account and transferred to the revenue authorities, so rejection for non-deposit of the prescribed percentage was not justified. The dismissal of the appeal was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order-in-original had been validly served so as to render the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) time-barred; (ii) whether the statutory pre-deposit requirement stood satisfied when the disputed amount had already been recovered from the appellant's bank account.

Issue (i): whether the order-in-original had been validly served so as to render the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) time-barred

Analysis: Service of orders was required to be established in the manner contemplated by the governing provision, which contemplated tender, registered post with acknowledgement due, or speed post with proof of delivery. The department produced only dispatch particulars and postal receipts, but no proof of delivery. In the absence of such proof, mere dispatch could not sustain a presumption of actual service on the appellant. The record also showed that the appellant had sought a copy of the order and that the order was subsequently communicated again, supporting the claim that actual service occurred later.

Conclusion: The appeal could not be rejected as time-barred on the basis that the order had been served in September 2017; the finding of belated filing was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the statutory pre-deposit requirement stood satisfied when the disputed amount had already been recovered from the appellant's bank account

Analysis: The record showed that, before filing the appeal, the department had already recovered the disputed amount from the appellant's bank account and transferred it to the revenue authorities. In those circumstances, the statutory requirement of pre-deposit stood complied with, and the appeal could not be rejected for non-deposit of 7.5% of the disputed amount.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit objection was not sustainable against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable, and the matter was sent back for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere proof of dispatch is insufficient to establish valid service where the statute requires proof of delivery, and pre-deposit requirements stand satisfied when the disputed amount has already been recovered by the department.

---