Proof of service governs limitation for refund appeals; unsupported service finding led to quashing of the revisional order.

Service of the adjudication order was not proved because the record contained no acknowledgement of receipt by the assessee, and the respondents failed to link the alleged recipient with the petitioner or its proprietary concern. The postal certificate relied on by the revisional authority was not produced before the Court, so the finding that the refund appeal was time-barred on the basis of due service lacked supporting evidence. The revisional order was therefore quashed, and the Appellate Collector's order allowing the refund claim was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government was justified in revising the Appellate Collector's order on the ground that the refund appeal was time-barred because the adjudication order had been duly served on the assessee.

Analysis: The record did not contain any acknowledgement showing receipt of the adjudication order by the petitioner, and the respondents did not establish any connection between the person said to have received the communication and the petitioner or its proprietary concern. The postal certificate relied upon by the revisional authority was not placed before the Court. In these circumstances, the finding that the adjudication order had been served on the petitioner was unsupported by relevant evidence.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not be sustained and was quashed; the order of the Appellate Collector allowing the refund claim was restored.

---