Valid service at recorded business address and expiry of the condonable period together bar delayed tax appeals.

Service of an adjudication order at the registered business address recorded in departmental records gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of due service, and that presumption is not displaced without cogent evidence of a changed address or other material. On that footing, service was treated as complete when the order-in-original was sent by speed post to the recorded address. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore treated as filed beyond the maximum condonable period, and the appellate authority had no power to extend limitation further on equitable grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether dispatch of the order-in-original by speed post to the registered business address constituted valid service so as to trigger limitation, and whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred as filed beyond the maximum condonable period.

Analysis: The order records that the appellant's registered business address in the departmental records continued to be the same address to which the order-in-original was dispatched. In the absence of timely intimation of any change of address, service at the recorded address attracted the statutory presumption of service. The appellant did not produce cogent material to dislodge that presumption. Once service was treated as complete, the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed beyond the period that could be condoned under the governing limitation provision, and the appellate authority had no power to extend the time further.

Conclusion: The service was held to be valid and the appeal was time-barred beyond the condonable limit, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal fails on the combined findings of valid service and statutory limitation, leaving no basis to interfere with the rejection of the delayed appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of an adjudication order at the address recorded in the departmental registration creates a rebuttable presumption of due service, and where the appeal is filed beyond the statute-prescribed condonable period, the appellate authority cannot enlarge limitation on equitable grounds.

---