Limitation for service-tax appeals: delay beyond the outer condonable period cannot be excused once deemed service is established.

Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 required a first appeal to be filed within two months of receipt of the order, with only a further one month available on sufficient cause. Where the record showed dispatch and deemed service, and the appellant did not rebut the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the delay could not be treated as explainable on the facts. An appeal filed beyond the outer condonable limit was therefore not entertainable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to extend time further. The time-bar objection succeeded and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation and whether the delay could be condoned on the facts proved regarding service and receipt of the order.

Analysis: Under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, an appeal had to be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order, and the appellate authority could extend the period only by a further one month on sufficient cause being shown. The evidence on record supported dispatch and deemed service of the order, and the appellant's own pleadings did not establish a credible basis to displace that presumption. Once the appeal was filed long after the outer condonable limit, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The rule in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 supported the presumption of service by post, and the explanation for delay was found unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the rejection of the appeal as time-barred was ; the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the statutory time limit for filing the first appeal had expired beyond the maximum condonable period, leaving no scope for interference on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a normal limitation period and a strictly limited further period for condonation, the appellate authority cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond that outer limit, even if delay is asserted to have arisen from delayed receipt of the order.

---