Limitation and presumed service of order-in-original barred the delayed appeal; statutory condonation limit could not be extended.

Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 allows an appeal within two months of receipt of the adjudication order and permits condonation only up to a further one month. Because the order-in-original was shown as delivered by post at the appellant's address, service was presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The appellant's affidavit did not rebut that presumption with cogent evidence, and surrounding conduct indicated awareness of the proceedings and lack of due diligence. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore time-barred, delay beyond the statutory limit could not be condoned, and the dismissal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation and whether the appellant rebutted the presumption of service of the order-in-original so as to justify condonation of delay.

Analysis: Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 permits filing of an appeal within two months from receipt of the adjudication order and empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay only up to a further period of one month. The record showed postal delivery of the order-in-original at the appellant's address, attracting the statutory presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and a corresponding rebuttable presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant's affidavit was found insufficient to dislodge the documentary proof of service, especially in view of the surrounding conduct showing awareness of the proceedings and lack of due diligence.

Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred, the delay could not be condoned beyond the statutory limit, and the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a fixed outer limit for condonation of delay in appeal, the appellate authority cannot entertain a delayed appeal beyond that limit, and service by post is presumed proved unless the contrary is established by cogent evidence.

---