Limitation runs from service of the order, making the tax appeal timely and restoring it for hearing.

Limitation for filing the appeal had to run from service of the Order-in-Original, not merely from the date it was posted. The record showed that the order sent on 30.12.2022 was returned undelivered and no effective further service steps were taken, so the assessee was treated as having received it only on 07.03.2023. On that basis, the appeal filed on 22.05.2023 was within time, and rejection of the appeal solely as time-barred was unsustainable. The limitation objection was rejected, the dismissal order was set aside, and the appeal was restored before the Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time-barred when the Order-in-Original was not served on the assessee until 07.03.2023, and whether the rejection of the appeal on limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The limitation for filing the appeal had to be computed from the date of service of the Order-in-Original, not merely from the date on which it was posted. The record showed that the order sent on 30.12.2022 was returned undelivered and that no further effective steps were taken by the Department to serve it. Since the assessee received the order only on 07.03.2023, the appeal filed on 22.05.2023 fell within the permissible period of limitation. The rejection of the appeal solely on the ground of delay was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected, the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside, and the appeal was restored before the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the petitioner.

---