Service by post and limitation for filing appeals affirmed; statutory restriction on appellate condonation enforces dismissal when time barred

Discussion of service by post and presumption of delivery establishes that dispatch to a known address creates effective service within a reasonable period, supporting limitation calculations for filing appeals. The analysis emphasises statutory limits on condonation of delay, holding that the appellate authoritys power to extend time is confined by statute and cannot exceed the prescribed short extension, resulting in dismissal when appeals are filed beyond that permissible condonable period. The decision applies the principle that law assists the vigilant and affirms appellate tribunal jurisdiction to review maintainability and limitation where statutory time bars are invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal is time-barred and whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under the statutory scheme applicable to service-tax appeals.

Analysis: The question involves application of the statutory provision governing service by post and the time limits for filing appeals. The legal framework includes the deeming provision for service by post (Section 27, General Clauses Act, 1897) and the limitation and condonation provision applicable to appeals under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 which permits filing within two months from receipt and a further one month only if the appellate authority is satisfied of sufficient cause. The material findings include that the order-in-original was dispatched by post on 28.09.2021 to the recorded address and was provided to the party by departmental communication thereafter; there is no cogent evidence rebutting the presumption of delivery. Judicial authority and precedent distinguish speed-post and registered-post presumptions but uphold that sending to the correct recorded address gives rise to a presumption of service which the appellant bears the burden to rebut. The proviso to Section 85(3A) limits the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay only up to one month beyond the two-month period; Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to extend this statutory cap. Considerations of change of address or internal forwarding do not discharge the appellant's duty to inform the department or to provide cogent evidence of non-receipt.

Conclusion: The appeal is time-barred and the delay is not susceptible to condonation under the statutory scheme; accordingly the appeal is dismissed (resulting in a decision in favour of the Revenue).

---