Limitation on appeal must exclude time spent obtaining certified copy where valid prior service of the original order was not established.

Limitation for filing the appeal had to be computed from the effective service of the certified copy where earlier valid service of the order-in-original was not established. The record showed a photocopy was first handed over, a certified copy was then applied for and later issued and served; the period spent in obtaining that certified copy could not be counted against the appellant. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in treating the appeal as time-barred, and the appeal was within limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation, and whether the period spent in obtaining the certified copy of the adjudication order had to be excluded while computing the limitation period.

Analysis: The service of the order-in-original was not established as having been validly completed earlier, while the record showed that a photocopy was first handed over on 14.05.2018, an application for certified copy was made on 22.05.2018, the certified copy was issued on 11.07.2018, and it was served on 17.07.2018. In these circumstances, the limitation for filing the appeal had to be computed from the effective date of service of the certified copy, and the period consumed in obtaining it could not be counted against the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore erred in treating the appeal as time-barred.

Conclusion: The appeal was within limitation, the delay stood condoned, and the dismissal on the ground of time bar could not be sustained.

---