Effective service governs appeal limitation where mere dispatch without proof of delivery cannot establish earlier receipt.

Limitation for filing an appeal runs from effective service of the adjudication order, and mere dispatch is not enough without proof of delivery. Where the record did not establish valid service on the earlier date relied on by the department, the date of actual receipt had to be treated as the relevant date for computing limitation. On that basis, the appeal fell within the condonable period, the limitation objection could not be sustained, and the appellate order was set aside with remand for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation when the assessee disputed service of the order-in-original and asserted that the date of actual receipt was later than the date relied upon by the department.

Analysis: Service of the adjudication order had to be established in the manner contemplated by the governing service provision, and mere dispatch was insufficient in the absence of proof of delivery. The record did not show valid proof that the order was effectively received by the assessee on the earlier date asserted by the department. In these circumstances, the date of actual receipt was taken as the relevant date for computing limitation under the appellate provision. On that basis, the appeal was within the condonable period and the rejection on limitation could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was unsustainable and the assessee succeeded on the question of maintainability; the appellate order was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation for filing the appeal runs from effective service supported by proof of delivery, and mere dispatch without such proof does not constitute valid service.

---