Appellate time limits under Section 85(3A): receipt at recorded address governs limitation; appeal held time barred.

Whether an appeal was time barred under Section 85(3A) turned on proof of receipt; the applicable rule requires filing within two months of receipt, with an extra month only on showing sufficient cause. The tribunal treated proof of postal despatch as insufficient absent delivery confirmation; actual receipt at the address in departmental records may be established by affidavit. Here the departmental record showed despatch and no return, and the recipient's affidavit established that the order was received at the recorded address and handed to representatives later due to occupant delay. Applying these principles, the appeal was held time barred and rejected for delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time barred under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The appellate time limits under Section 85(3A) require filing within two months of receipt of the order with an additional one month only upon showing sufficient cause. Proof of postal receipt requires evidence beyond mere despatch, such as delivery confirmation or postal acknowledgement. The departmental record showed despatch and absence of return; the recipient's affidavit established that the impugned order was received at the address in departmental records and was handed over to the appellant's representatives only on a later date due to the occupant's delay in informing them. The affidavit thereby evidences actual receipt at the recorded address and supports the conclusion that the department discharged the burden of establishing delivery.

Conclusion: The appeal was time barred and the appellate authority correctly rejected the appeal on grounds of delay.

---