Presumed service and statutory limitation barred the service tax appeal; delay beyond the condonable period could not be excused.

Where an order in original is sent by post to the recorded address and there is no material showing it was returned undelivered, service is presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. On that basis, the appeal was treated as filed beyond the two-month limitation under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, and also beyond the further one-month period that could alone be extended. The statutory appellate authority had no power to condone delay beyond that ceiling, so the limitation objection was upheld and the challenge failed without examination of merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation on account of deemed service of the order in original, and whether delay beyond the statutorily condonable period could be excused.

Analysis: The order in original was sent by post to the appellant's recorded address and there was no material to show that it was returned undelivered. In such circumstances, service by post attracted the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The appellant failed to dislodge that presumption. On the facts, the appeal was filed beyond the period of two months prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also beyond the further one-month period within which alone the appellate authority could extend limitation. The appellate authority, being a creature of statute, had no power to condone delay beyond the statutory ceiling.

Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred and no further condonation was permissible; the objection to limitation was rightly upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: Statutory presumptions of service and the fixed limitation under the service tax appellate scheme prevailed, and the challenge failed without examination of the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an order is properly posted to the recorded address and is not shown to have remained undelivered, service may be presumed, and the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the period expressly permitted by the statute.

---