Valid service through registered post to an apparent company representative can trigger limitation unless lack of authority is proved.

Service of an adjudication order under Section 37C is effective when delivered by registered post to a person purporting to represent the company, unless lack of authority is affirmatively rebutted with credible material such as a board resolution or comparable evidence. In the absence of such rebuttal, the acknowledgment attracts the presumption of regularity under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act and supports a finding of valid service. Where service is treated as effected on 11-2-2005 and the appeal is filed much later on 30-8-2005, the appeal is time-barred beyond the condonable period and the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation, and whether service of the adjudication order on a person claiming to represent the company amounted to valid service under Section 37C.

Analysis: Section 37C of the Central Excise Act requires service of an order on the person intended or on an authorized agent. The postal acknowledgement showed delivery of the order to a person purporting to represent the company. The appellant's assertion that the recipient was unauthorised was not supported by any board resolution or comparable material showing the scope of authority. The acknowledgment therefore attracted the presumption of regularity under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, which had not been successfully rebutted. On that basis, service was held to have been effected on 11-2-2005, making the later appeal filed on 30-8-2005 hopelessly delayed beyond even the condonable period.

Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred, service of the order was valid, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of an adjudication order by registered post to a person purporting to represent the company is valid under Section 37C unless the alleged lack of authorization is affirmatively and credibly rebutted; in such circumstances, the statutory presumption of regularity may sustain a finding of service and limitation.

---