Valid service on importer requires actual receipt or authorised receipt; service on Customs House Agent alone did not start limitation.

Service of an adjudication order on a Customs House Agent was not valid service on the importer for limitation purposes where there was no material showing authority to receive the order or contest the proceedings on the importer's behalf. The CHA's role was limited to import-related work, and it did not continue after importation for receipt of adjudication orders. Limitation therefore ran from the date the importer actually received the order, making the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within time. The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the adjudication order on the Customs House Agent constituted valid service on the importer for computing limitation for the appeal, and whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time-barred.

Analysis: The Customs House Agent had been shown as a party before the adjudicating authority only because a penalty had been proposed against him, but no material showed that he was authorised to receive the order or to contest the proceedings on behalf of the importer. The authority of a Customs House Agent is confined to import-related work, and once importation is complete, he does not continue as the importer's agent for receipt of orders. In these circumstances, the relevant date for limitation was the date on which the importer actually received the order, and the appeal filed thereafter was within time.

Conclusion: Service on the Customs House Agent was not valid service on the importer for limitation purposes, and the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was unsustainable. The order was set aside and the matters were remanded for decision on merits.

---