Rebuttable presumption of service controls limitation where receipt is disputed; unproven communication cannot sustain a time-bar dismissal.

Registered-post acknowledgment creates only a rebuttable presumption of service for limitation purposes. Where the addressee denies receipt and supports that denial by affidavit, the department must prove that the person who signed the acknowledgment was authorised by, or known to, the appellant; failing that, communication of the adjudication order is not established and limitation cannot be computed against the appellant on that basis. The Tribunal also held that a jurisdictional objection based on the baggage restriction did not bar an appeal directed only against the limitation order. The time-bar dismissal was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for consideration of delay and disposal on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was sustainable when service of the original adjudication order on the appellant was disputed. (ii) Whether the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by the jurisdictional restriction relating to baggage under section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was sustainable when service of the original adjudication order on the appellant was disputed.

Analysis: The limitation period for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) depended on the date on which the adjudication order was communicated. A registered-post acknowledgment creates only a rebuttable presumption of service. Where the appellant denied receipt and supported that denial by affidavit, the burden shifted to the department to show that the recipient who signed the acknowledgment was known to or authorized by the appellant. As that was not established, service on the appellant could not be presumed. On the appellant's own version, the appeal was filed within the period that could still be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal on the ground of time-bar was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by the jurisdictional restriction relating to baggage under section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The order under challenge before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide the merits of the confiscation dispute but only the issue of limitation. In that setting, the jurisdictional objection based on the proviso dealing with baggage did not prevent consideration of the appeal against the limitation order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that it could entertain the appeal against the time-bar order.

Final Conclusion: The limitation-based rejection was set aside and the matter was sent back for consideration of delay and disposal of the appeal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of an adjudication order by registered post is only presumptive, and once the addressee rebuts service by affidavit, the department must prove valid communication to the appellant or an authorized recipient; without such proof, limitation cannot be computed against the appellant on the basis of that alleged service.

---