Invalid service of adjudication order means limitation runs from actual receipt, making the appeal timely.

Where an adjudication order is dispatched to an incorrect address, valid service cannot be presumed unless tender, delivery, or substituted service is shown in accordance with the governing provision. For limitation purposes, the appeal period runs from actual service, not from the date of mere postal dispatch. On the facts, the order was treated as received only later, so the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within time. The dismissal as time-barred was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order-in-original could be treated as duly served when it was dispatched to an incorrect address; (ii) whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the order-in-original could be treated as duly served when it was dispatched to an incorrect address.

Analysis: Service of an adjudication order must be established in the manner prescribed by the governing provision. Where the department dispatches the order to an erroneous address, and the record does not show valid tender, delivery, or substituted service at the correct address, no presumption of service can safely arise. The finding of service based only on postal dispatch particulars and assumed delivery time was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The order-in-original was not validly served on the appellant on the date of dispatch, and service could be presumed only when it was actually received later.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Limitation for filing the appeal had to be counted from the date on which the order was actually served. Since the order was treated as received only on 28.07.2020, the appeal filed thereafter was within the prescribed time. The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred proceeded on an erroneous assumption of earlier service and could not stand.

Conclusion: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within limitation and was not barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned dismissal on limitation was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on merits after hearing the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudication order is dispatched to an incorrect address, valid service cannot be presumed for limitation purposes, and the appeal period runs only from actual service.

---